Causes of Suicide Terrorism

Here’s an absolutely fascinating interview with Robert Pape, a University of Chicago professor who has studied every suicide terrorist attack since 1980.

RP: This wealth of information creates a new picture about what is motivating suicide terrorism. Islamic fundamentalism is not as closely associated with suicide terrorism as many people think. The world leader in suicide terrorism is a group that you may not be familiar with: the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka.

….TAC: So if Islamic fundamentalism is not necessarily a key variable behind these groups, what is?

RP: The central fact is that overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. From Lebanon to Sri Lanka to Chechnya to Kashmir to the West Bank, every major suicide-terrorist campaign—over 95 percent of all the incidents—has had as its central objective to compel a democratic state to withdraw.

….TAC: If you were to break down causal factors, how much weight would you put on a cultural rejection of the West and how much weight on the presence of American troops on Muslim territory?

RP: The evidence shows that the presence of American troops is clearly the pivotal factor driving suicide terrorism.

If Islamic fundamentalism were the pivotal factor, then we should see some of the largest Islamic fundamentalist countries in the world, like Iran, which has 70 million people—three times the population of Iraq and three times the population of Saudi Arabia—with some of the most active groups in suicide terrorism against the United States. However, there has never been an al-Qaeda suicide terrorist from Iran, and we have no evidence that there are any suicide terrorists in Iraq from Iran.

….TAC: Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders also talked about the “Crusaders-Zionist alliance,” and I wonder if that, even if we weren’t in Iraq, would not foster suicide terrorism. Even if the policy had helped bring about a Palestinian state, I don’t think that would appease the more hardcore opponents of Israel.

RP: I not only study the patterns of where suicide terrorism has occurred but also where it hasn’t occurred. Not every foreign occupation has produced suicide terrorism. Why do some and not others? Here is where religion matters, but not quite in the way most people think. In virtually every instance where an occupation has produced a suicide-terrorist campaign, there has been a religious difference between the occupier and the occupied community.

….TAC: Has the next generation of anti-American suicide terrorists already been created? Is it too late to wind this down, even assuming your analysis is correct and we could de-occupy Iraq?

RP: Many people worry that once a large number of suicide terrorists have acted that it is impossible to wind it down. The history of the last 20 years, however, shows the opposite. Once the occupying forces withdraw from the homeland territory of the terrorists, they often stop—and often on a dime.

Pope recently published a book, Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism. Here’s a review.

UPDATED TO ADD: Salon reviewed the book.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Posted on July 18, 2005 at 8:10 AM • 67 Comments

Comments

Roy Owens • July 18, 2005 8:48 AM

Of course the proudly activist Christian White House intends to see the occupation through to the bitter end. Call this the Forever War.

Hoby Smith • July 18, 2005 9:43 AM

So, Roy, wouldn’t the act of posting your personal opinion here be considered “Proudly Activist?” Or are you saying that “Proud Activism” is a good thing? So, what would you prefer? An “Anti-Christ” White House? Perhaps the previous one we had? The one that rashly flaunted presidential affairs and indiscretions, cowardice in war (one of the reasons we have our current situation), arguments over the definition of the word “is”, a complete lack of accountability, and just uncontrolled lasciviousness? Yeah, there’s a plan! Perhaps the current White House is just trying to restore some dignity to the oval office? So, can I call your complaint the “Forever Whining”?

A. Reader • July 18, 2005 9:47 AM

Interesting thoughts but I think anticipating a sudden stop to suicide attacks the moment that the US pulls out of Iraq/Afghanistan is rather short sighted. Suicide attacks are a component in the spectrum of unconventional warfare. Withdrawing from the existing engagements would likely move the focus to ending support for Israel (or another strategic objective)and provide a much larger base for training and recruiting. It would be comforting for some to paint this conflict as between the Christian Bush and the Islamic bin Laden but other than making some feel “good” I don’t think that analogy takes us anywhere useful.

Davi Ottenheimer • July 18, 2005 10:22 AM

Excellent. I was hoping you’d bring this up and it looks like an good read.

I posted something related to this topic last night as I pondered McVeigh’s reasoning that his service in the Iraq war was what initially motivated him to turn against the US. Most troubling, perhaps, was his reference to the age-old debate that if an occupying force justifies killing women and children during their occupation, then the “same” tactics are justified in a fight against occupation.

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/07/london_bombing.html#c8328

McVeigh was not a suicide bomber and he took years to develop his resolve and plans to attack. Yet, I think it is relevant because one has to wonder how we become susceptible to extremists and at what point or how we actually go “over the edge” — become willing to carry out radical and extremist visions of “dignity” (reference to Hoby Smith intended)?

Millions of people were subjected to many of the same influences that McVeigh was (e.g. glorified militarism and the harsh economic downturn/recession of the 1980s) but it is not clear that it led to mass radicalism. So perhaps Pape’s point about American occupation could also apply to the occupiers, that exposure to those conditions radicalizes everyone’s inherent value differentiation? McVeigh often referred to the threat of democracy as well as communism, and he espoused some aspects of nationalism as a preferred route to smaller government. Religious differences did not seem to play a role.

Davi Ottenheimer • July 18, 2005 11:00 AM

@Hoby Smith

Interesting rant. I was going to avoid responding, but I could not help but ponder where you get your interpretation of history.

The key to your position seems to be the phrase “cowardice in war”. You actually appear to suggest (as a religious extremist might) that it is worse to have an extra-marital affair than to engage in acts of violence that cause the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. As if a costly war based on false pretenses and public deception somehow establishes dignity for the Bush Administration? I can not think of a single case in history where that sort of reasoning has held true, can you? On the other hand, history is full of leaders who are regarded favorably for leading their nation to great successes in spite of foolish personal (human) mistakes that seriously undermined their image at the time.

Back to the topic at hand, though, how many suicide bombers resulted from the US/NATO campaign in Bosnia? Would suicide bombing be as critical an issue if the US had been successful in getting the UN to lead the campaign against Iraq, since “occupation” would have a wholly different meaning?

Grainne • July 18, 2005 11:10 AM

“Once the occupying forces withdraw from the homeland territory of the terrorists, they often stop — and often on a dime.”

Suicide attacks are probably the most effectively shocking attacks that terrorists can undertake with a limited budget and resources. However, these attacks must be highly organised as ‘volunters’ for these attacks are hard enough to come by – and also I’m sure they don’t want to keep killing off their own members.
So it only makes sense that as soon as their issue is resolved (i.e. stop occupation) that they would cease the attacks.

And also by occupying a country we can only but create more terrorists by infringing on lives. So I don’t see the reason for the ‘war on terror’ – who are they trying to catch? For every ‘terrorist’ they kill in this way, there will be more created out of anger from the first killing. It’s a bit of a vicious circle…

DarkFire • July 18, 2005 11:10 AM

To be sure there is some extremely interesting annalysis in the interview and I look forward to the publication of the entire data set.

However… I think we are missing what is perhaps opne of the most central points of suicide terrorism (at least in the Islamic fundamentalist context). One of Bin Laden’s greatest achievements has been to promote the axiom that for the hordes of young, well educated, intelligent and articulate young men who through no fault of their own are living in desperate poverty and outright squalor in so many countries of the world, militancy and suicide in the name of horribly perverted faith is The Answer.

Personally I believe that by far and away the most effective measure to “dry up” the seemingly never-ending pool of would-be suicide bombers will be to combat the poverty, dismal living conditions and nigh-on medieval standard of life that a large proportion of them have to suffer.

If the poorest sections of the populations of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Sudan etc. etc. had their general quality of life enhanced by 2-300%, I believe that this would almost totaly dry up the major source of suicide recruits for the extremists. Show them that this life can be comfortable for them and their families, and they will be far less inclined to dogmatically believe that the only way to achieve a tollerable standard of living is in the next life.

We can harden all the targets we want and terminate suicide bombers until we run out of munitions, but unless we substantially tackle the root cause of the desparation that drives these young men, suicide terror will never be totally defeated.

Davi Ottenheimer • July 18, 2005 11:14 AM

I thought these were particularly interesting statements:

“Before our invasion, Iraq never had a suicide-terrorist attack in its history. Never. Since our invasion, suicide terrorism has been escalating rapidly with 20 attacks in 2003, 48 in 2004, and over 50 in just the first five months of 2005. Every year that the United States has stationed 150,000 combat troops in Iraq, suicide terrorism has doubled.”

“When there is a religious difference between the occupier and the occupied, that enables terrorist leaders to demonize the occupier in especially vicious ways. Now, that still requires the occupier to be there. Absent the presence of foreign troops, Osama bin Laden could make his arguments but there wouldn’t be much reality behind them. The reason that it is so difficult for us to dispute those arguments is because we really do have tens of thousands of combat soldiers sitting on the Arabian Peninsula.”

History • July 18, 2005 11:17 AM

This guy (Robert Pape) is stupid. He says we can stop suicide bombings if we pull our troops from Afghan and Iraq. But it was suicide bombings that got us into those countries in the first place. Maybe he doesn’t recall 9/11.

Some researcher he is…

Plus if you look at the entire history of islamic fundementalism (going back to before the Cruesades) you see that they have waged war to to conquer and destroy the West since day one. That is their ultimate goal. They will not stop if we leave Iraq and Afghan. They willnot stop if we gave them Israel. They will not stop if we gave them all of Europe…when will people begin to understand that this is their goal? They preach it publically! Do people not hear the wrods they speak?!

Thomas Sanderson • July 18, 2005 11:19 AM

@Davi Ottenheimer:

So democracies should just withdraw when faced with people intent on blowing themselves up (along with several unwilling others)?

Frankly, I don’t get the media craze with suicide bombings. Being ready to die for a cause is no guarantee that the cause is right. These people are no better than deluded thugs– at least the kamikazes of another generation fought in uniform.

Davi Ottenheimer • July 18, 2005 11:20 AM

“If the poorest sections of the populations of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Sudan etc. etc. had their general quality of life enhanced by 2-300%, I believe that this would almost totaly dry up the major source of suicide recruits for the extremists.”

I agree that economics are at the heart of the debate regarding violence and extremism, but the interview actually mentions “Sudan is a country of 21 million people. Its government is extremely Islamic fundamentalist. The ideology of Sudan was so congenial to Osama bin Laden that he spent three years in Sudan in the 1990s. Yet there has never been an al-Qaeda suicide terrorist from Sudan.”

Thomas Sanderson • July 18, 2005 11:27 AM

Also: Al Qaeda is not a one-trick pony. When it was able to do (Clinton-era) it organized conventional attacks against the US. It arranged for conventional training in Afghanistan. Now that those have been denied to them, they are using what they can– and the fact that they are using the human body shows the extent of their cold-bloodedness.

With respect, this study is bunk. It confuses fighting a philosophy (fundamentalist violent Islam) with fighting a tactic.

Davi Ottenheimer • July 18, 2005 11:43 AM

“So democracies should just withdraw”

No, that’s a debate about the barn doors after the horse has already run away.

Democracies should be smarter about when/where/how they engage in conflict especially when they clearly involve a term of occupation.

Today’s situation, like the utter disaster that the Senior Bush initiated in Somalia, simply leaves the next president with very few viable options.

Do not forget that in 1992 President Bush suggested “There is no government in Somalia. Law and order has broken down. Anarchy prevails. The people of Somalia, especially the children of Somalia, need our help.” And yet, the US was harshly recieved and was forced to withdraw after a serious of serious miscalculations about the nature of the limited occupation and related “relief efforts”.

So, I advocate avoiding the mess unless justified in the first place, and coordinating an International effort to make a “goal” significantly clear. The US has rushed into occupation like a driver that refuses to ask for directions. Let’s hope we do not run out of gas before we reach our destination.

Just the Facts Jack • July 18, 2005 11:50 AM

@History

Whoa! Hold on a second!

“But it was suicide bombings that got us into those countries in the first place. Maybe he doesn’t recall 9/11.”

Geez, buddy. You need to take a good look at the facts. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Where the White Women at? • July 18, 2005 11:51 AM

@History

"Maybe he doesn't recall 9/11."

Errr… Seems that the UBL party-line was more or less lifted from the Mujahadeen, whom he fought along side of: Stop western military occupation/manipulation of Muslim states. Not to mention his supposed irritation with the rampant corruption and collusion with the west, in the gov’t of his own nation, Saudi Arabia.

"Plus if you look at the entire history of islamic fundementalism (going back to before the Cruesades) you see that they have waged war to to conquer and destroy the West since day one. That is their ultimate goal."

Hahahaha… What?? Have you been drinking the neo-con kool-aid again? The Crusades happened because of some border skirmishes in TURKEY, at which point some war hawk religious fundamentalists (Catholics) decided it would be best to go ahead take everything down to Jerusalem instead (Sound Familiar?). It was not to beat back some evil brown hoard advancing on Northern Europe. During all of this, Europe staggered solidly into the Dark Ages where religous fundementalism caused Science and Medicine to stagnate, while it flourished in the Islamic world.

I imagine that you also think that the Inquisition was a good idea that just didn’t get followed through. Methinks your crypto-racisim is not so crypto…

Bruce, how’d you get the LGF crowd in here? I don’t see any military porn or NEVER FORGET banners?

Peacenik • July 18, 2005 11:59 AM

Grainne,

You write “Suicide attacks are probably the most effectively shocking attacks that terrorists can undertake with a limited budget and resources. However, these attacks must be highly organised as ‘volunters’ for these attacks are hard enough to come by – and also I’m sure they don’t want to keep killing off their own members.”

Buddhists have an even simpler, equally shocking attack, which takes fewer resources. They light themselves on fire.

I commend this techqnique to those contemplating killing others in pursuit of their goals.

YouBlewMeUp • July 18, 2005 12:04 PM

Well, if nothing else, maybe this will help stop the suicide bombers:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/18/you_blew_me_up/

In these troubled times it’s good to know that someone out there is addressing the issue of how you would express your anger and disgust were you – God forbid – to become a victim of terrorist atrocity.

Enter YouBlewMeUpYouBastard.Com, a new online resource dedicated to ensuring that your ire is properly expressed photographically and verbally

Tom • July 18, 2005 12:04 PM

@Hoby Smith:
“So, Roy, wouldn’t the act of posting your personal opinion here be considered “Proudly Activist?””

Not unless you care to redefine the whole of human discourse as activism. My dictionary defines activism as direct, confrontational, even militant action; griping on the Internet is none of these.

“So, what would you prefer? An “Anti-Christ” White House?”

Christlike.

“Perhaps the previous one we had?”

I didn’t like him much at the time, but the constant comparisons to the guy we have now make him look a lot better.

Sylvain Galineau • July 18, 2005 12:30 PM

To fit the alleged pattern, it could be argued that 9/11 was a continuation of attacks against the USS Cole and the Khobar towers. It does seems a stretch though, and leaves out the ambassy attacks. Which occupation did they target ? Why in southeastern Africa ?

Most importantly, the author’s rather deterministic assumption is flawed in one major aspect. That Palestinians, Lebanese or Kashmiris use such tactics to fight their nation’s occupation is one thing.

The 9/11 gang do not fit the formula at all, though. Atta was Egyptian, the rest Saudi or Yemenites, two countries that are neither occupied nor at war; more recently, the London bombers hailed from Pakistan; the Madrid and Casablanca bombers were from Morocco, the Bali bombers were Indonesians.

So we are left with people who use bombs, including in suicide attacks, when none of their homelands are occupied by Americans or ‘Zionists’ or any other of the usual scapegoats.

Clearly, extreme nationalism alone is not a sufficient or even a necessary factor. Until Islamic fundamentalism enters the picture, at which point Palestine, Iraq and everywhere else is part of the Muslim Homeland. When it is not alluded that territories that used to be part of it should be reconquered (as was the case with Spain/’Al Andalus’).

So I would agree that for people blowing themselves up in their own country, religion might not be the only or even the main factor.

But when Syrian or Jordanian foreigners blow themselves up in Iraq, or when British citizens of Pakistani heritage execute a suicide bombing mission in London, religion is most definitely a factor.

Moreover, Iran is a very bad example to support this overall argument; large-scale suicide attacks were widely used by Iran during the war with Iraq. Entire regiments of indoctrinated teenagers were sent to the frontlines to sacrifice themselves in Allah’s name.

Hezbollah, backed by Syria and Iran, has run suicide attacks for decades, including the huge Beirut barrack bombing of 1983. It was involved in the Khobar Towers bombing as well.

Lastly, the poverty argument, always mentioned in such a thread, is not well supported by the evidence. Atta and his Saudi helpers were not broke or poor. Bin Laden did not exactly grow up in need. The London bombers were not rich but by the standards of their homeland they were certainly not poor either. (One just had a used Mercedes bought for him by his father).

If poverty was the ‘root cause’, we should be hiding from African Muslims, who have had it a lot harder than their Middle Eastern counterparts and still suffer a great deal more.

Ari Heikkinen • July 18, 2005 12:46 PM

So here we have a university professor who has actually done extensive research on the topic and basing his opinions strictly on research and evidence he has gathered (as academics generally do).

So who do you believe? Some DHS guy on TV making comments about terrorism that make no sense at all or a university professor who’s actually been studying the subject for years and is basing his comments on actual evidence and data he’s gathered?

Here’s a good quote from the interview:

“I am not saying that Osama bin Laden would turn over a new leaf and suddenly vote for George Bush. There will be a tiny number of people who are still committed to the cause, but the real issue is not whether Osama bin Laden exists. It is whether anybody listens to him.”

Hoby Smith • July 18, 2005 1:13 PM

@Davi Ottenheimer:

Wow, now I am a “religious extremist”! Because I don’t support openly depraved behavour in positions of leadership? So, before you label me as something else that fits your need to defame people of decency, I guess I better clarify what I meant. What I was suggesting was that if Clinton had dealt with Bin Laden when he had the chance, we would not be where we are now. Or, if he had brought to attention obvious indicators of pending disaster, instead of suppressing them so that he can look like a nice president, things would not be as bad as they are. But, perhaps like you, he was too busy having affairs to be concerned with things like national security. Way too sensitive an issue to put your pants back on for! And where in the world do you get this foolishness from… “acts of violence that cause the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent people”? What have we done that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people? Unless you are referring to what other people have done, such as the slaughter of a couple of million Christians in Africa by supporters of Islam, something you are problably complicit with because they would just be “religious extremists” to you anyway? All that trying to live a peaceful life stuff must really aggravated you and your anti-religious ideals. No, the thousands of dead innocent people killed by religious extremists were here on our soil. And this President has the “decency” and “character” to not be concerned what people like you think, so the he might protect the rights of his citizens and the memory of those killed by trying to prevent it from occuring again.

x • July 18, 2005 1:47 PM

Davi, don’t bother. Hoby is obviously completely nuts.

Remember, you can’t reason with the unreasonable… Or the clinically insane.

President Evil has “decency” and “character”. I love it! Keep those hilarious jokes coming, please!

Arik • July 18, 2005 2:10 PM

From the article (a part that Bruce didn’t quote)”

TAC: What do you think the chances are of a weapon of mass destruction being used in an American city?

RP: I think it depends not exclusively, but heavily, on how long our combat forces remain in the Persian Gulf. The central motive for anti-American terrorism, suicide terrorism, and catastrophic terrorism is response to foreign occupation, the presence of our troops. The longer our forces stay on the ground in the Arabian Peninsula, the greater the risk of the next 9/11, whether that is a suicide attack, a nuclear attack, or a biological attack.”

Just a remainder, Mister: The 9/11 attack happened BEFORE there were massive US forces in the Arabian Peninsula. The last time US forces were ammased there was 1991, and they were not planning on staying. If 9/11 had something to do with that, it would happen closer to 1991, and not 2001.

This sort of sums my take on how this guy views the situation.

Chung Leong • July 18, 2005 2:33 PM

@Sylvain Galineau

“Lastly, the poverty argument, always mentioned in such a thread, is not well supported by the evidence. Atta and his Saudi helpers were not broke or poor. Bin Laden did not exactly grow up in need. The London bombers were not rich but by the standards of their homeland they were certainly not poor either. (One just had a used Mercedes bought for him by his father).”

I was just about to point that out. The notion that poverty is at the heart of terrorism is simply contrary to facts. Many people in the West are just keeping in the sand. They want to think that foreign aid, dialogues, and other means of the so-called “soft power” can stop terrorism. Perhaps it’s comforting to them to think they have control over the phenomenon. Perhaps it’s simply unbearable to think that others, instead of wanting the material things that they have and cherish, could be fundamentally against these very things. In any event, this sort of analyses serves more to show the intellectual and ideological poverty of the West than it does explaining the subject matter.

Patrick Coyle • July 18, 2005 2:33 PM

I can’t beleive this. This is a place for discussion, not personal attacks. Let’s keep things calm and try not to wander too far off the point

@Hoby and x

You might not have guessed but people are trying to discuss an article. We might not all agree with it but there is no need for anyone to get nasty.

Some guy • July 18, 2005 2:47 PM

So IOW if we do what the suicide bombers want, thereby making their tactics successful, they’ll stop doing it?

If I give my dog a milk bone every time he pisses on the floor, do you think that will make him more or less likely to piss on my floor in the future?

I don’t care how just anyone thinks their cause is, murdering defenseless civilians, including women and children doesn’t make me very sympathetic.

Aqualung • July 18, 2005 2:53 PM

@Sylvain,

The US maintains a large (or several large) military bases in Saudi Arabia (with consent from the govt, of course). Terrorist figureheads (such as OBL) can use this presence to incite Saudis to commit acts of terrorism by claiming that the US presence is an occupation or a defilement of their land etc…

In addition to this, many of the Arab nations that have made in recent history taken a more secular, western approach to government and governance have in the past couple of decades experienced a fundamentalist resurgence which has resulted in some very radical anti-western groups in countries that are otherwise relatively liberal and democratic.

As for Iran’s “suicide attacks”, there’s a difference between sending in troops to die on the front lines and acts of suicide terrorism. Pearl Harbor was not a terrorist act, because it was a pre-emptive strike by the Japanese military targeting the American military with a strategic objective. 9/11, by contrast, was an attack by a group not officially supported by any government against a civilian target with no strategic value other than to, as the name suggests, create terror in the nation. Hezbollah, while they may have been supported by Iran and Syria, wasn’t Iranians blowing themselves up in the suicide attacks.

The point of the article is that heads of terrorist organizations, much like send-me-your-money televangelists and cult leaders are using a veneer of religion to dupe credulous followers into helping them achieve their own more secular goals.

David • July 18, 2005 2:58 PM

The area has been occupied for a very long time, long before 9/11. Does anybody remember the French or the British, two democracies that occupied those lands for a long time. This was also followed-up by large numbers of troops in Saudi Arabia. Some might be angered over Israel, which receives the largest foreign aid from the U.S. despite the fact that’s it’s a rather tiny country that itself is occupying foreign lands.

And Syria has just left Lebanon, if you believe they are truly gone.

I think the point is rather clear, that the biggest arguments are against foreign troops in your land, whether occupying after an invasion, or whether occupying by invitation (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia), or whether occupying by supplying billions of dollars worth of weapons systems to countries that you don’t like.

Recall, we were not too happy when the Soviets provided a lot of assistance to Cuba, and we still can’t get over this tiny, poor country that is not a threat to the U.S. whatsoever.

Recall that we had to attack Vietnam over rather trumped up charges, with the fear that if we didn’t the domino theory would mean the whole world was on a path towards communism. Yet we LOST the Vietnam war and pulled our troops out. Did the world turn communist? What other Asian countries became communist after Vietnam? Are we not selling weapons, Boeing jets and doing other trade with Vietnam today?

One of the central tenets of Christianity is love of your neighbor and your enemy, to turn the other cheek. The reason this works is that it’s hard to wage war against people who are not attacking you (unless a Christian liar tries to turn Iraq into a lesson of 9/11 despite the conclusions that no such linkage existed).

The safety we experience in the streets where I live do not come from cameras, I.D. checks, police on every corner, searches of everyone, etc. It comes from the fact that people do not hate one another because no group is attacking the other. If one group of Americans or foreigners began attacking the citizens in my town, I’m sure the town would rise up and fight.

You can guage the “validity” of this war by the number of volunteers who rush to join the cause. In Afghanistan, after 9/11, there was a big rise in people wanting to fight for this country. That’s gone in Iraq because very few really believe that’s a just war.

We should pull out, and the sooner the better. If Iraq cannot contain itself with its own police and military and billions of dollars in aid and weapons, then perhaps it’s not a legitimate government. Rebellion is allowed when a government is not just towards its people. My guess is that Iraq would do much better, with the wind taken out of the current rebellion since Iraq would then be ruled by Iraqis and not have the U.S.. Today, the U.S. has at least 135,000 troops AND occupies the seat of government in Iraq in the “green zone” despite the fact that Iraqis should occupy the seat of their own government.

Mark Gritter • July 18, 2005 3:03 PM

@Arik: There were U.S. forces in Saudi Arabi throughout the 90s. It is well established that Osama Bin Laden objected to this. The end of the Gulf War was not the end of the U.S. presence— even though only 5000 troops remained it was a sensitive issue for some.

You are also ignoring the attempted WTC bombing (1993), embassy bombings (1998) and U.S.S. Cole (2000) which were carried out by al-Qaeda. (Another incident was the bombing of Khobar Towers in 1996, which killed 19 servicemen.) It is not like a period of ten years elapsed with nothing happening.

Ed T. • July 18, 2005 4:21 PM

@Davi,

I don’t think they (suicide bombers) are necessarily insane — however, they are committed. IIRC, the Japanese military in the latter days of WWII fielded some soldiers/sailors/airmen who could be construed as “suicide bombers” — these folks weren’t nuts by any means. In fact, the Japanese weren’t the only ones to do this — the Germans (according to some reports) had their own “kamikaze” units, and indeed even Col. Doolittle made a statement which indicated that, under the proper circumstances, he would have flown his B-25 into a target of opportunity.

I think we need to be careful how we classify these folks — simply blowing them off as “just plain crazy nuts” is incredibly short-sighted.

Felix_the_Mac • July 18, 2005 5:43 PM

To people who have commented that 9/11 had nothing to do with there being large numbers of American forces in the Persian Gulf and that therefore the Professor must mistaken, I would like to point out the following:

Osama Bin Laden is a Saudi.
Mecca the holiest city of Islam is in Saudi Arabia.
There have been American troops in Saudi since just after Iraq invaded Kuwait.
Saudi Arabia is a dictatorship supported by the Americans because of its oil.
One of the declared aims of Al-Qaeda is to drive the Americans out of Saudi.

Here are a couple of links that I googled after writing this to provide supporting evidence:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/30/wsaud30.xml
http://cfrterrorism.org/causes/saudiarabia.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030222-saudi01.htm

Felix_the_Mac • July 18, 2005 6:01 PM

“The central fact is that overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland.”

If you remove the word suicide, this sentence applies equally well to the IRA. Particularly in relation to bombings on the British mainland such as the ‘Birmingham pub bombings’.

Davi Ottenheimer • July 18, 2005 6:06 PM

@Ed T.

Yes, I agree and I think it has been nearly impossible for cultures to come to terms with this sort of behavior, let alone try to understand situations involving cross-cultural conflict.

To your point about WWII, I recently heard a compelling radio report that interviewed Kamikaze pilots who survived. They discussed their reasons for “volunteering” and the shame involved in surviving or never having a chance to fight. It radically changed my understanding of why/how these men chose self-sacrifice as a form of attack — often as a measure of loyalty to help protect their family. This idea of extended honor and preservation through personal sacrifice seems like the sort of glorious afterlife theme I often hear with regard to today’s Islamic bombers, although they seem to infer radical Islam is the family (since parents are unaware to avoid detection or because of their natural objections to the conflict).

Ohnuki-Tierney’s book (Kamikaze, Cherry Blossom, and Nationalism) on the “tokkotai” or “special attack corps” echoes this theme. She discusses the way in which the Kamikaze were told by the state that they needed to “volunteer” to “defend their country against American invasion”, but they ultimately carried with them a variance of religious, philosophical, and utopian ideologies that they individually used to justify self-sacrifice. She even goes so far as to suggest that many of the pilots borrowed Christianity from Europe to provide them with a model of sacrifice for others and the notion of life after death.

Arik • July 18, 2005 6:11 PM

@Mark

You’re right, only the discussion is about SUICIDE bombers.

And regd. Bin Laden – when you want to find reasons, you will find them. Yeah, right, 5000 troops which are NOT an invading force in Saudi Arabia is a good reason for killing as many civilians.

Arik • July 18, 2005 6:13 PM

@Mark – cont

When I say they are not an invading force I mean that they did not invade SA, they were there with SA’s permission.

Felix_the_Mac • July 18, 2005 6:42 PM

(Having completed reading the article I now know that he talked about the IRA towards the end)

What are the rational responses of a democratic government towards this kind of attack on their home soild:

  1. Capitulate as the Professor states the UK government did with the IRA.
  2. Attack. Identify something that you can invade/destroy.

2a. Attack – invade/destroy something that will make the government feel better and look like it is taking positive action. i.e Iraq.

  1. Intelligence/Infiltrate, to prevent further attacks.

  2. Try to address the underlying concerns of the more moderate population from which the terrorists are drawn.

Items 1 and 4 are similar and will be seen as the same by hardliners with the oppsoite point of view to the terrorists. ie. Reverend Ian Paisely and some Conservative MPs.

Any more?

Pe5kyTac0 • July 18, 2005 7:14 PM

This blog shows why we are screwed.
Within the Western powers, no one can agree on the following:

“What is a terrorist”
“What are the terrorists goals”
“The long term solution stop/prevent terrorists”

What we seem to have is everyone wants to defend their political ideology or defend their favorite U.S. president/candidate. I just recently finished reading a book about the Mossad (Gideon’s Spies: ISBN: 0312252846). As per the book the Mossad was formed in the late 1940’s as a response to Islamic suicide bombings back at that time. Hence we in the western world are the new comers to this game.
I buy into Bruce’s methodology to analyze risks, but as I read his book “Beyond Fear” I found the methodology can be flawed when he allowed his political leanings to determine quick answers before all the risks were examined. I would say this was the greatest flaw in his book and this blog.

While this blog can and has been be interesting, the arguments based on insults and “gotcha” replies only seem to serve the purpose of feeding one’s ego about how “right” you are. I think an interesting topic would be, “You have just been placed in charge of a special task force for the Western powers. You have the full support for What would be the European Union and the United States. What are your top five steps to reduce/prevent terrorists from the Middle East from becoming a threat?

Can you also define the answers to the three questions?

Can you prove your answers above using the steps Bruce describes in “Beyond Fear” but with a complete examination of the issues and not just ones that server your political bias?

One caveat: If you have to insult a past/present leader or any religion as part of the explanation for one of your steps, then you have missed the goal of the exercise.

Sylvain Galineau • July 18, 2005 7:22 PM

@Aqualung

US troops have been moved out of Saudi following the invasion of Iraq. This is no longer a valid rationale. Moreover, they never did constitute an occupation since they were invited. Unlike Israeli troops in Palestine or US ones in Iraq. Never mind the US protecting Saudi Arabia from Iraq during the first Gulf War.

Second, whether military or not, suicide attacks have been commonly used by Iran. Third, Hezbollah does have Iranian elements.

Iran very much has a record when it comes to suicide attacks.

Finally, I don’t see this being the point of the article at all. It argues that religion is not an important motivation for the bombers and this tactic, not that it’s a recruiting excuse.

Felix_the_Mac • July 18, 2005 7:36 PM

@Sylvain:

You say that “Iran very much has a record when it comes to suicide attacks”

In this you contradict the Professor.
Would you care to provide some evidence to support your position?

Sylvain Galineau • July 18, 2005 7:40 PM

Iran-Iraq war, creation, funding, staffing of Hezbollah, involvement in Lebanon and Israel terror attacks. Given Iran’s record, I’d rather think the burden is on the ‘Professor’ to show that Iran does not promote or use suicide attacks.

Interesting that he can assert this to be the case without justifying himself, but I have to provide evidence. Must be nice to be a ‘Professor’.

Lance Boyle • July 18, 2005 7:47 PM

“So democracies should just withdraw when faced with people intent on blowing themselves up (along with several unwilling others)?”

I think you’re looking at this the wrong way. We shouldn’t do anything based on what terrorists want, do or say. Unless, that is, you like being controlled by terrorists. Who gives a F%$# what they want? Instead, we should base OUR actions on what’s good for the people of the USA. There is really no reason to be involved to the extent we are in the Middle East (this has been going on for decades). We can just BUY the oil. We don’t have to steal it. Oil is their main export & they WILL sell it. So why are we there? Are we just protecting the assets of Exxon? If so, let Exxon hire their own mercenaries if they want to operate there. Fifty years ago, you could have gotten away with an imperialist foreign policy. Not anymore, the world is too connected today.

lurker • July 18, 2005 10:49 PM

@All,
Hmmmm . This blog and comments are usually so technical, they are a escape from other sites which have opinionated comments of political/personal goals. Now, there is no difference between this site and others …

The only obvious things are
– History is written by the winners .
– Statistics/facts used for support of a viewpoint can be twisted eitherway.

The truth is somewhere in between. And when you accept that both sides are to blame, the only way is to lay down the arms ,retreat and reflect. The only action would be withdraw .

Imagine yourself in their boots. Innocents are not only in London..

Sylvain Galineau • July 19, 2005 5:45 AM

lurker, superficial moral relativism and other stereotypical claims that the truth is “somewhere in between” – in between what ? – are as comfortable as they are irrelevant to the topic and problem at hand.

We are not arguing about who writes history, or the relativity of facts, both of which are mostly used as a convenient escape route for a few to assert their opinion – or lack thereof – without working too hard at backing them up.

Interpretation is subjective. Facts are not.

Both “sides” are to blame ? And how are the London victims to blame for being blown up, exactly ? Did they choose their “side” by sitting on a bus or a subway ?

Patrick Coyle • July 19, 2005 9:59 AM

On BBC Radio 4’s Today program (a news magazine for those not aware of it) this morning there was an interview with Prince Hussan of Jordan in which he mentioned this article. You can listen to the program again on

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/radio4_aod.shtml?radio4/today

You should be able to listen to it until sometime tomorrow morning.

I’m reminded of a program that was aired over here (UK) a little while ago called “The Power of Nightmares” which was a look at the growth of both Islamic Fundamentalists and US Neo Conservatism from the mid 50’s onwards. The most fascinating part was the parallels it drew between the two groups, not in their methods but in the reasons why the groups began – both to protect the way of life from people who opposed it. Liberalisation in the US, American foreign policy in the Islamic case. It is well worth trying to get hold of a copy if you are able to. It has not been released as far as I am aware…

It sheds some light (or at least it did for me) into two ways of thinking that I did not previously understand. It was aired in 3 hour long episodes (proper hours, no adverts).

Sylvain Galineau • July 19, 2005 10:41 AM

No worries. Once moral or other equivalence between Islamic fundamentalists and ‘US neoconservatism’ is seriously considered, it’s likely to be a BBC program.

I can’t help recall those who seriously – or so they thought – compared Hitler’s ascension with Newt Gingrich’s back in the mid-90s. The cult of correlation and conspiracy theories is quite popular (as Michael Moore’s bank account can attest); establishing causation is unfortunately a lot harder and less deterministic and simplistic than finding superficial similitudes and extrapolating conclusions from them.

In fact, in most cases the only point of those exercises is to support the pre-existing views and prejudices of those involved. How many pundits, politicians and academics have you read, seen or heard establishing parallels and comparisons that refute or contradict their own bias ?

Nadeem • July 19, 2005 12:53 PM

@Sylvain,

I wonder if you are just trolling here or if you really are blind to what’s been going on. You are mixing up causes and effects to support your argument. None of your arguments invalidate Mr. Pape’s theory.

Osama wanted the US out of Saudi. That was before the Iraq invasion. That was a part of the Al Qaeda manifesto. The presence of US forces in Saudi may not have been an invasion, but it could be characterized as an occupation to people already unhappy with foreigners on Saudi soil. As such, credible individuals could be convinced to fight against that “occupation”, not to mention US support of Saudi’s authoritarian regime.
(Hence the occupation argument may still hold true)

Since 9/11 Osama has gotten a good portion of what he wanted. The US is now out of Saudi and Al Qaeda’s recruitment is up.

Your argument on Iran lacks merit, which is why you’ve been asked for some documentation. Conflating military attacks against Iraq with terrorism is just foolish. By your definition, the Russians would be terrorists for fighting against the Germans in WWII.

The point of the article is summarized in the subtitle: It’s the occupation, not the fundamentalism. If you have difficulty with understanding that, perhaps you should spend less time typing and more time reading.

Chung Leong • July 19, 2005 1:58 PM

@Patrick Coyle

“The most fascinating part was the parallels it drew between the two groups, not in their methods but in the reasons why the groups began – both to protect the way of life from people who opposed it.”

I am sure you can draw fascinating parallels between liberal groups in America and the Khmer Rouge too. The essential difference is the willingness to use violent methods to advance an agenda. That’s not a triviality dismissible by half a sentence. If Islamic fundamentalism does not produce violent militants, then we wouldn’t be talking about this. The world isn’t losing sleep over the ultra-orthodox Jews or fundamentalist Christians.

When given a choice between secular materialism, moderate Islam, and Wahhabism, some people will always choose the last. Unless a non-violent fundamentalist Islam arises, I think we’ll finding this war for a long time.

Sylvain Galineau • July 19, 2005 2:12 PM

Nadeem, calling people trollers and asserting their arguments are irrelevant puts you in a diffcult position.

Concluding with arrogant, dismissive condescension does not help your case either. But let’s ignore your assumptions of superiority for the moment.

People may choose to characterize a few thousand troops invited to stay on Saudi territory by its government as an ‘occupation’; that does not make it so, nor is such a claim sufficient to justify global mass murder.

Yet some may indeed believe it and act on it. That does not make them rational, regardless of how ‘credible’ you consider them to be. That people would be willing to end their life to get these troops out of Saudi Arabia on the sole basis of their presence is not only an exceedingly weak rationale, it is unsupported by the evidence at hand : see Al-Qaeda’s own statement related to its own attacks. You might be able to spot slight, subtle religious overtones in there. No, really.

Second, is something truer or more ‘credible’ when people are ready, able and willing to kill many for it ? If I kill one person because I believe him to be a space alien, I’m a nut. Case closed. But if I kill a thousand people for the same reason, all kinds of otherwise intelligent people will come out of the woods to ‘explain’ and ‘understand’ my actions.

No wonder terrorism is so compelling as a political tool. The rest of us make it so. There is a feedback loop at work here. Terrorism is used because it is seen as effective. Why is that ?

Why does my argument over Iran lack merit ? The conflating you allege is your own entirely, based a gross and convenient misrepresentation of my statements. Hezbollah has nothing to do with Iraq, and its Iran funding and backing is well known and documented.

The use by Iran of large-scale suicide attacks in both conventional and guerilla warfare contradicts the thesis postulated above. Less substantiated but nevertheless recent wire stories (e.g. http://www.iranpressnews.com/english/source/004878.html from AP) do not exactly contradict the pattern.

Your analogy with WW2 has no connection with my argument either, beyond your flat, unsupported assertion that it is.

I understand the point of the article perfectly. And I happen to disagree with it based on the evidence. You may disagree with specific points and provide your own counter argument.

As opposed to claiming people who disagree with you ‘confuse’ this with that without justifying your claim, or by selectively misrepresenting their argument.

piglet • July 19, 2005 3:11 PM

Your argument that US troops in Saudi Arabia were “invited” overlooks the fact that islamist ideology doesn’t only decry Western colonialism but criticizes also those governments of muslim countries who are perceived as colluding with the enemy. Saudi Arabia is a case in point. Bin Laden was a respected Saudi citizen until he criticized the Saudi rulers for inviting an “infidel” army into the “holy muslim land”. It is no secret that Saudi Arabia is the USA’s main strategic partner in the Near East. During the war against a progressive secularist government in Afghanistan, islamic fanatics like Bin Laden had no quarrel to welcome US money and weapons. He credited the Saudi government for having brought in the US as allies. But when the US and their allies were seen to get more and more control over the region, their former brothers in arms turned against them.

Whether you perceive this as reasonable or not, US presence on the Arabian peninsula has been an important rallying argument for radical islamists. And they direct their wrath not only against the West but against their own rulers too.

re poverty (Chung Leong et al): Poverty does play a role, but of course not in the simplistic sense you seem to be assuming. You should stop concentrating on the terrorist leaders themselves. What is important is why a considerable number of people are listening to them, and many of those are poor. Those people are aware of inequality and injustice. They are well aware of the history of colonialism (don’t forget, each time a Western leader is using the word “crusade”, he is recruiting new terrorists). The ideology of islamism is of course religious, but it is also very political, decrying imperialism and social injustice (muslims believe that islam protects the poor and the weak). We will never be able to adequately respond to islamic terrorism if we fail to understand this ideological mix.

Davi Ottenheimer • July 19, 2005 3:48 PM

@Chung Long

“The world isn’t losing sleep over the ultra-orthodox Jews or fundamentalist Christians.”

Wow, how wrong you are. Roy Owens hinted at this, but have you ever heard of Graham, Buckley, Hinn, Falwell, Robertson, Swaggart & Baldwin? Ever read what they say about the “holy war” against Iraq?

Let’s take a step back from suicide bombing for a second and ask if you noticed that the US President has a “special council” with his personal circle of fundamentalist Christians each week? Read this article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1195568,00.html

So if you do not think fundamentalist Christians are a concern (either pro/con), you do not live in America. It’s a BIG issue that has percolated since the 1980s. Moreover, I often hear right-wing hawks argue things like “When was the last time you heard about fundamentalist Christians attacking and terrorizing innocent citizens of a Muslim nation or any nation for that matter?” And yet they will glibly say in the next breath, “yeah, thank goodness that Bush is a fundamentalist born-again Christian. We finally have a real Christian in the White House!” (never mind the FORTY-ONE prior Christian Presidents — http://www.adherents.com/adh_presidents.html)

(just do a search for Marvin Olasky for more info on Bush’s fundamentalism)

Even more to the point about day-to-day issues, many aspects of American life have been targeted by Christian fundamentalists as part of their move to redefine “freedom”.

That means a veritable slipperly slide away from first-world tolerance and economic progress directly backwards towards faith-based third-world-like confrontations. Take the latest Texas ruling as an example (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-soprano11jul11,0,6915027.story?coll=la-news-comment-editorials):

“Boys cannot audition for soprano or alto roles in that state’s All-State Choir. Girls cannot audition for tenor or bass. No matter where their talents lie.”

The article also mentions that the state’s Board of Education requires textbooks to define marriage as the “lifelong union between a husband and wife” to discourage gay marriage. The author then correctly muses, “the close to 50% of Texas marriages that end in divorce don’t count.”

Sylvain Galineau • July 19, 2005 3:55 PM

piglet, that’s not what is argued. Neither it is my point. It is implicitly claimed that the perception of US forces constituing an occupying force, due to their presence, could enough of a motive that religion is secondary.

Which is patently untrue. Since every single statement that ever emanated from Al-Qaeda on this matter explicitly states that US presence is offensive for religious reasons, namely that Saudi Arabia is the Muslim Holy Land etc etc.

Attacks on the USS Cole, Khobar Towers and others were justified in religious terms, to correct a blasphemy, not an affront to the local national honor.

Second, if the Saudi government were a serious target, one would expect an equal number of aggressive attacks against the Saudi authorities as well. This did not happen until very recently and has been a lot less focused than efforts to target well-defended Americans.

Third, the negative reaction of Saudi public opinion and Muslims in the region to those attacks in Saudi Arabia that killed Muslims show that sensitivity to such killings is not only selective, but a function of religious affiliation. So much for religion not being a factor in justifying and motivating such tactics.

re: poverty. The ‘crusade’ argument is not only an old tired excuse, it would also contradict Pape’s thesis. The notion that modern, secular individuals would be so offended by the use of a word also used to describe a religious expedition from nearly 1,000 years ago as to kill themselves and random others with a bomb is lunacy. Such semantic slippage can, by definition, only be offensive to religious fundamentalists.
And implied assertions that its use alone is enough to recruit volunteers must be backed up with evidence, for which there is none.

Lastly, and given the experience of the ayatollah’s regime, that of the Afghans under the Taliban and others, it is doubtful whether the individuals concerned are aware of ‘inequality’ and ‘injustice’. Social justice does not seem to apply to women, for starters. As for the injustice the mullahs inflict on others in the name of Allah, well, there doesn’t seem to be much awareness in that department.

‘Imperialism’ or the ‘history of colonialism’ is no justification either, especially when most of the people involved never lived under colonial rule.

RG3 • July 19, 2005 5:23 PM

@Sylvain Galineau

RE: your point that the London bombers/9\11 bombers were not in poverty. The bombers themselves (or even the organisers) don’t need to be poor for the theory to hold. Only those they identify with (their home country in the case of the London bombers, the Saudi populace in the case of Osama) need to be. I’m not saying that the theory is true, only that your argument doesn’t invalidate it.

And you continually refer to the fact that certain reasons don’t “justify” certain actions. From whose point of view? When it comes to motivation for an action, only the actor needs to consider it justified by the reason. Only the suicide bomber needs to consider an occupying force sufficient reason to carry out an attack.

I had other points, but piglet said them better.

@Arik

Saying “when you want to find reasons, you will find them” is all very well, but still doesn’t explain the underlying reasons, which must exist (although they don’t have to be rational). The superficial reasons are only needed to acheive the aims that the underlying reasons drive. This may be recruiting bombers, aggravating western powers or straining race relations (there was a theory that bin Laden was after nothing less than an all out Western-Arab war).

Chung Leong • July 19, 2005 10:56 PM

@Davi Ottenheimer

“Wow, how wrong you are. Roy Owens hinted at this, but have you ever heard of Graham, Buckley, Hinn, Falwell, Robertson, Swaggart & Baldwin? Ever read what they say about the “holy war” against Iraq?”

And have you heard of certain Gen. Zhu Chenghu? He said China should use nuclear weapon against the US in event of a conflict between the two countries. Oh my God! Time to start digging!

If I lose five minutes sleep everytime some fool utters something non-sense, I would be dead.

“So if you do not think fundamentalist Christians are a concern (either pro/con), you do not live in America.”

For your information I do live in America. And as I said, the fact that someone is strongly religious doesn’t bother me, even if that someone is a public figure. Being religious doesn’t equate with having malicious intent. And even if I don’t agree with their views, I know that for everyone of them, there will be someone like you. In the end the system balances itself.

What concerns me is the lack of tolerance for people who are religious, irregardless of faith. If there were no peaceful means for fundamentalist Christians to express their belief and influence the system peacefully, we’d see a lot many more folks like Eric Rudolf.

Sylvain Galineau • July 19, 2005 11:05 PM

RG3,

Semantic games are rather boring. aren’t they ? It was asserted earlier that the people involved were easy to recruit because poor and therefore desperate. When in fact, many are neither. As for identifying with the Saudi populace, the richest in the region by far, it certainly does not support the poverty argument. The contradictions keep piling up. Keep them coming.

I do not give a hoot how justified their action are from their point of view. I do not care how justified the Nazis felt in slaughtering six million Jews either. That only them ‘needed to consider it justified’ is completely irrelevant in judging the legitimacy of their actions.

That Bin Laden and his cohorts felt justified in killing 3,000 people in NYC is both a perfectly obvious and totally irrelevant fact.

Does the fact that Nazi SS felt so justified in carrying out mass murder mitigate or validate their actions ?

I doubt anyone would be so vacuous as to push moral relativism this far, would they ?

I am not questioning Al-Qaeda’s belief that Saudi, for instance, was being occupied. Obviously, they did believe it was. That does not make it true or rational, no matter how many believe it, or how many they kill as a statement of their belief.

Given this, the possible futility of engaging the enemy through reason is left as an exercise to the astute reader.

Davi Ottenheimer • July 20, 2005 12:02 AM

@Chung

Ok, I suppose I was unclear and therefore deserved your response.

“And as I said, the fact that someone is strongly religious doesn’t bother me, even if that someone is a public figure.”

No, no, the issue is how they (by definition of being fundamentalist) actively try to redefine the way in which you live. The fact that you think there have been no changes mean you a) do not disagree with their fundamentalist views even when they demand you return to fundamental principles and violate principles of freedom and/or b) are simply not paying attention. Have you ever had your car pelted with large stones while driving on the sabbath? Perhaps you have no idea what I’m talking about?

“What concerns me is the lack of tolerance for people who are religious, irregardless of faith.”

First, you must simply come to understand that fundamentalism is the very antithesis of tolerance.

Your response has therefore turned into an amusing example of circlular reasoning — you are not concerned with fundamentalists who espouse intolerance, yet concerned with people (fundamentalists) that are intolerant of others.

It really gets confusing when you start to espouse the fundamentalist line that they are “oppressed” by people who do not willfully submit and adhere to their principles. You are really drinking their cool-aid when you start to say things like being anti-fundamentalism or anti-extremism means you are anti-religion. The truth is, religion is far more rich and rewarding than fundamentalists will ever allow. I am not saying all fundamentalism is bad (there are degrees in everything). I am saying that when you disagree with radical/extreme fundamentalism you are essentially arguing for the apple in spite of the worm.

Consider, for example, “Tony Blair has called on Muslim moderates to drown out the voice of extremists.”

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0714/p06s02-woeu.html

“Experts say the challenge for authorities now will be to combat terrorism by bolstering mainstream Muslim society to ensure no further defections to the fanatical jihadi camp. ”

These experts are not anti-religious just because they recommend supporting moderates and reducing the invasive and irrational actions of the fundamentalists.

Davi Ottenheimer • July 20, 2005 12:16 AM

@Chung

“I know that for everyone of them, there will be someone like you.”

Well, actually, there are far fewer fundamentalists than moderates and secularists, yet they are far more organized and vociferous in their quest. Since the definition of fundamentalism is intolerance, they live to reduce competing ideas, especially competing ideas of the good life or the right way to live.

“In the end the system balances itself.”

What balance? What tips these scales? And what’s your real feelings on the recent suicide bomings in London? Do you just callously write that off as part of some part of a supernatural balance and it had to happen? If so, that would certainly explain why fundamentalism does not keep you up at night.

piglet • July 22, 2005 5:45 PM

@Sylvain: “It is implicitly claimed that the perception of US forces constituing an occupying force, due to their presence, could enough of a motive that religion is secondary.” The fact that Bin Laden has justified his actions “in religious terms”, as you say, does not invaldiate the argument of Pape. This is a traw man argument, because Pape does not deny the religious element. On the other hand, the “occupation” motivation cannot seriously be denied. You may argue that Pape understates the first and overstates the second, but I think it is hard to argue that he got it competely wrong.

“Third, the negative reaction of Saudi public opinion and Muslims in the region to those attacks in Saudi Arabia that killed Muslims show that sensitivity to such killings is not only selective, but a function of religious affiliation. So much for religion not being a factor in justifying and motivating such tactics.” Again, the religious factor is not denied.
By the way, we are hardly in the position to accuse muslims of “selective sensitivity”. Just look at how much space our media devote to dead Americans or Israelis in comparison to dead Arabs or Afghans.

“The ‘crusade’ argument is not only an old tired excuse… The notion that modern, secular individuals would be so offended by the use of a word also used to describe a religious expedition from nearly 1,000 years ago as to kill themselves and random others with a bomb is lunacy.” Now you are really being ignorant. The word crusade, when used for example by Bush in connection with the Iraq war, is offending because Arabs know what it means: massacres, occupation, oppression, Western hubris. Actually, I am offended myself, and I’m not even a muslim.

“‘Imperialism’ or the ‘history of colonialism’ is no justification either, especially when most of the people involved never lived under colonial rule.”
Well, they did. Almost all countries with predominantly muslim population have been under colonial rule until very recently (two generations is nothing in historic terms). By the way, colonial rulers were in most cases liberal democracies, like Britain, France post-revolution, even the Netherlands and Belgium and finally the USA. And those nice democratic people have been responsible for some of the worst atrocities in human history. Just to set the record straight.

Matthew • July 25, 2005 12:11 PM

FACTUAL CORRECTION. The Shining Path terrorists in Peru during the ’90s killed hundreds of thousands of people(per HRW), though their primary target was industry, but there was no occupying force they were opposing. See Wikipedia for confirmation as to their goal (so-called communism) & complaints.

“For every ‘terrorist’ they kill in this way, there will be more created out of anger from the first killing. It’s a bit of a vicious circle…”
I’d call it a good way to direct heaps of money into the corrupt Military-Industrial complex. See URL under my name, below… That is largely why Bush trumped up charges and invaded.

If the Islamists drive the Jews out of their homeland, or the world drives them out in an effort to appease the Islamists, what of the terrorism this paper suggests will result? Keep in mind the relative military capability and skill of the two groups.

Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Sudan – collectively have enough wealth to keep their populations far out of poverty. There’s no need for money from the countries they’re attacking. All Saudis are well supported by the state.

Islam is a religion of peace?
Islamist theology drives the terrorism of the Arab World. http://www.secularislam.org/articles/call.htm
Christianity is a religion of peace? What about the Crusades? the Inquisition?
Fundamentalism generally ties to intolerance, hate, violence, and war.

tc • July 25, 2005 3:33 PM

@Sylvian
You use as an argument the lack of attacks against the Saudi leadership as an argument why Bin Laden uses religion as a motivator. I don’t have the link handy, but the Huffington Post had a link a while back to a book being published on the Saudi Royal’s doomsday defense (e.g., they have rigged the oil fields and refineries to self destruct if they are attacked or removed from power). Could it be Bin Laden knows that attacking the Royals at this time will blacken and destroy the Saudi oil wells and refineries and thus dry up a major source of funding for his operation and leave his homeland desolated? He isn’t a fool. Maybe he has inside information that the report on the Royal’s doomsday scenario is true? He is a patient man. If he can drive the Royal’s from power through other means and save the oil production, then it is better to pursue this goal. He can put pressure on the Royal’s main ally (Bush and company) and through them achieve the same end. It still gets back to an American friendly, Royal Family occupying Bin Laden’s homeland. What would make it stop is the Royal’s rejecting America? This is what he seeks.

piglet • July 26, 2005 9:54 PM

Two interesting pieces in the Guardian about the question of this thread:

“The government’s refusal to associate cause and consequence, which would be child-like were it not so obviously self-serving, is sustained only by hysterical warnings against the new evil of “root-causism” from the residual pro-empire liberals.” http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1536779,00.html

“The London bombings pose a dilemma. It is hard to believe that the right response to terrorism is to make concessions. But the terrorism also seems part of a cycle of violence in which we too are involved, a cycle of potential war between Islam and the west that threatens to spin out of control. Should we do nothing, leaving the violence to accelerate? Or should we make concessions that may encourage terrorism?”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1536761,00.html

Leave a comment

Login

Allowed HTML <a href="URL"> • <em> <cite> <i> • <strong> <b> • <sub> <sup> • <ul> <ol> <li> • <blockquote> <pre> Markdown Extra syntax via https://michelf.ca/projects/php-markdown/extra/

Sidebar photo of Bruce Schneier by Joe MacInnis.