Librarium Online Forums banner

Why do people conduct suicide attacks?

2K views 24 replies 10 participants last post by  Kahoolin 
#1 · (Edited)
Xerxes post on extremism got me thinking a bit, and I went off on a tangent, so here I am.

Firstly, this is controversial, so let's keep it civil, please. We're all entitled to our opinions.

Secondly, before I present my thoughts, I'd like to state I don't really know anything about the cause and origin of Islamic terrorism in the modern world, at least, no more than any Western citizen who reads a few newspapers and has an inquisitive mind would know. I'm not a scholar of islamic history and culture, or a counter terrorism expert.

For this reason, I'm going to have to draw most of my examples from the stuff I've learned about the kamikaze during my degree. Now, this is pretty controversial in itself, and I could really offend some Japanese people by suggesting a link between the kamikaze (who were a weapon of war used to kill soldiers) and modern terrorists who target civilians in suicide attacks. But that's not the point here, the point is, why is someone willing to blow themselves up to kill?

Here are some of the opinions I've heard. Of course, they all tie together, but I'll try and express this when it crops up.

They are brainwashed into doing it/their ideology is focused on doing it.

I'm not sure about this one. There's no denying someone needs an ideological reason to saccrifice their lives, but perhaps brainwashing is a bit too far. Most Kamikaze pilots, I know, did not display any evidence of brainwashing. A cursory glance at their diaries or the quotes attributed them do not hold up to this. They were often reluctant, and prone to indecision and even panic attacks. One man, for example, shortly after confirming his desire to proceed with his mission, is reported to have broken down, screaming 'Mother! The navy is trying to kill me!' Another wrote in his diary that the reason he was conducting his mission was because he had been 'ordered to.' The religious propaganda surrounding Kamikaze pilots, and their rebirth as kami following death, also doesn't seem to have had any significant motivational effects.

Of course, we can't automatically apply this to Islamic terrorists. There is a specific ideology within Islam, but it could hardly be called a brainwashing influence, any more so than any other world religion which features violence in its holy texts (basically all.) There has to be another reason why ordinary Muslims, growing up in normal muslim families from all over the world, volunteer to kill themselves, and I don't think the answer is going to be found (at least not totally, I won't deny religion has an effect) in the ideology of Islam itself.

Since the dawn of human history, there have been people of a thousand different religions and varying levels of zeal prepared to saccrifice themselves for a cause. I don't think islam has any exceptional characteristics which make it prone to produce martyrs of this kind.

Muslims are oppressed, and have no way of fighting back save through self saccrifice.

Suicide bombs have been referred to in the past as 'weapons of the weak', presenting the idea that willingness to die for a cause is created by a supreme feeling of powerlessness, desperation, or other such factors.

I feel there is a relevent factor here, but I don't think it is the main one.

The act of suicide bombing certain implies desparation, but I don't think that explains everything. It's easy to argue 'Muslims feel oppressed by the West (note I use 'west' as a very broad term, intending to include countries like Israel which have been targetted yet are not truly 'western') and the only way they can express this powerlessness is through the desperate act of martyrdom.' Yet there are oppressed peoples and groups the world over which systematically fail to produce a similar level of willingness to self saccrifice.

I think it's fair to say that desperation does occasionally overide self preservation. The very first suicide attacks of world war 2 were actually independent actions carried out by pilots for whom death was imminent in any case. This was not even unique to Japan, pilots from all sides did, on occasions, intentionally commit suicide by ramming enemy targets, but, with the exception of a few cases, this was generally as a response to the certainty of imminant death. When a person is desperate, hungry, or poor, the normal barriers of self preservation can begin to corrode, I think. But I don't think it's enough to explain everything.

Suicide bombings are a supremely effective psychological weapon.

This is my favourite, and I think it's the one I'll generally side with.

The military intention of a suicide attack is not merely to kill. From a military standpoint, the Kamikaze was supremely successful compared to 'conventional' air attacks with a similar number of planes. But this wasn't it's purpose, and this wasn't why it was used. The intention was to indicate abseloute defiance and unwillingness to surrender, and it worked. Perhaps a little too effectively, given the horrible consequences of that assumption.

There are few things more terrifying to humans than death, and few things more important than self preservation. The idea, therefore, that someone would willingly forego self preservation in order to kill us is naturally a terrifying prospect.

I don't believe in a coherent organization called Al Quaeda, because I think it's a naive concept that there's this huge, well organized secret society spanning the entire world with every member answering, ultimately, to osama bin laden. That belongs in a James Bond movie. I believe, from the evidence presented to me, that al Quaeda is a cellular organization, with each cell acting independently, but occasionally cooperating with others. In fact, I'm not even sure there's an organization called al Quaeda at all.. The term could simply be a badge applied to any terrorist cell sharing a similar ideology to that of Bin Laden, and could not denote any actual links or communication.

However, I do believe there are people, perhaps not cat stroking supervillains, but people, who feel they are fighting a war (and of course, whose to say they're not?) It's a desperate war, fought by citizens of weak, impoverished nations, against the most powerful and influential nations on earth.

Hence, ultimately, we have the same situation which created the Kamikaze. We have a war between two parties, one of which cannot win on a conventional level. Thus, suicide bombers can be used to signal a powerful gesture of defiance.

I don't think suicide bombers ultimately do what they do out of desperation, or even religious fantaticism. I think those are both parts of it, but the ultimate answer, for me, is that they're doing it because someone has told them to. Because it's what's expected of them in the circumstances.

Sorry for the long post, but I hope you found my thoughts interesting. As I said, I'm not very informed, and I'm not very authoritive. So if you disagree, or think there's something I've not considered, please say so.

As I said, this is a sensitive issue, so let's keep it civil.

Also, I have proofread.. but I'm very tired, so sorry about the grammar.
 
See less See more
#2 ·
I think that they are forced to due this by the most extreme of Muslims. Think about it. Extreme Muslims could believe that less extreme are more expenable than themselves because who else would provide the true teachings of Islam. However, if it lost a lesser believer, they could simply shrug it off as an acceptable loss. So they bribe, threaten, condition young men, women and children to be target dummys, and living bombs in order to send their message of god. Most muslims are simply caught between these guys and us, being there targets.
 
#3 ·
Crisis of identity.

The religion they are taught, which is hardly islam, is taught to them by an identity entrepreneur. The identity entrepreneur gives them an identity. They commit suicide acts because it is part of their identity.

Imagine not knowing where you belong in the world? Imagine how much better these identity entrepreneurs make it for them.
 
#4 ·
I believe it is to do with Blind faith, and religion.

The Kamikaze pilots did it because they were serving their emperor, who was their god, literally. That's what he made all Japanese think, that he was their god. The American's made him announce to them all that he wasn't their god, which I think was none of their buisness, you don't see aliens invading earth, and making us all denounce our gods, and worship them.

With the Islamic terrorists, it's because they are promised 40 virgins when they get to paradise or something, because they were martyrs, serving their god.

Religion makes people do stupid things, but then again, equally as stupid things have been done by those who have no religion.
 
#5 ·
To be a martyr, to die for the faith, is just about the noblest thing a religious person can do.

In the case of the Islamic suicide bomber, the individual feels that his or her culture and religion are under siege by outsiders, be it Israelis occupying the Holy Land or American soldiers occupying a formerly sovereign Arab Muslim state.
Now, one soldier can do very little, and not without a small amount of desperation, the individual feels that he or she can be of most service in rallying the faithful by striking a blow and giving up his or her life.

The suicide bomber feels just and has no fear of death. The afterlife promised martyrs is a glorious one.

Now, the question of "how can we stop suicide bombers?" is a tricky one. (And one that current American military policy cannot seem to get the right answer to.) It is virtually impossible to stop a person who is willing to die to accomplish what they want, so therefore, suicide bombers must be stopped before they strap on the C4 harness.
Again, current American military policy has it wrong in arresting suspected bombers, because that just perpetuates the feelings of ill will toward the occupying Americans.

To stop the suicide bomber, you must put the notion in his or her head that death is not the only solution. To do so is to put doubt in his or her conviction. If the suicide bombers stop to consider that social change could be brought about in a different manner, such as elections, or cultural revolution, then they are less likely to strike a counter-productive blow.
 
#6 ·
a lot of this was just plain TLDR.

anyways, all i know is if i plan on dying, i plan on taking out as many other people on my '****' list as possible. it's just good PR.

but then again, everyone else can go again and place the blame solely on religion if they want and not the person's own choices. who am i to argue... although then again, who are they to say anything...
 
#8 · (Edited)
I think I would have to say that the 'homicide' bombers are mainly manipulated into their actions by charismatic leaders that have the ability to push all the right buttons on some very unfortunate people.

I may be persuaded into re-evaluating that position if anyone here can show me proof of one single individual follower of Islam that misinterpreted the Quran to read that all infidels must die, and that was unaffiliated with any terror group and came to their own conclusion that it would lead to a better afterlife and it was the will of Allah that they strap a bomb to themselves and commit 'homicide' by blowing up other people with it. I haven't seen one single 'suicide note'; or reference to the existence of said note; proclaiming such a decision.

The only bombers I see are members of a larger organization whose leaders somehow never make the decision to become 'homicide' bombers themselves. The leadership always manages to make themselves seem more important than their cause.

Kamikaze's are a different matter entirely. They were a military weapon of last resort. I can respect Japan's decision to utilize them. They were not a terror weapon.

The Islamic terror bombers have many more avenues of expression left to them politically, religiously and culturally. Terrorists terrorize people because they can, not because they have to.

As for the comment about America overstepping it's bounds by revealing the Emporer of Japan to be mortal, tough ****. If Japan hadn't attacked us it may never have happened that way. We can discuss the socio-political reasons why Japan went to war with the U.S. in another thread of your making if you'd like?

Meanwhile, show me your proof that an alien invader would not have done the same thing! :tongue:
 
#9 · (Edited)
dr_nick22 said:
The Kamikaze pilots did it because they were serving their emperor, who was their god, literally. That's what he made all Japanese think, that he was their god.
That's not 100 percent true, though probably at least 75 percent true. A lot of Japanese people, including some of the kamikaze pilots, didn't believe in the literal truth of the Emperor's divine ancestry, but they generally did not voice their opinions publically.

Ultimately, the more I read into the kamikaze, the more I start to think that they were motivated more by peer pressure, and the feeling of social expectation, than by actual religious devotion.

Perhaps the same can be said of suicide bombers? I really like Onlainari's idea of cultural displacement, and the act of martyrdom giving people an identity they couldn't find in life. Ultimately, perhaps it's just about the desire to be something more, to be a 'hero' (in its most subjective sense) and to be admired for your actions by others.

But i also think Joker was on an interesting track. Charismatic leadership probably has a lot to do with it.

I don't know about religion. Martyrdom, even in war, has been a virtue in much of Christian history, after all, yet even fantatically Christian societies do not produce suicide bombers. It's a piece of the puzzle, I think, but I'm willing to bet there's more to it than that.

For those interested in the Kamikaze stuff, you might like to read some extracts from the training manual, which I've managed to find in internet form here. It's actually quite moving, I think. The style alternates between the macho and the comforting.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,778587,00.html

There was a supposed Al Quaeda training manual translated into English recently. Would be interesting if anyone could find a reliable source to compare with the above. In particular, what sort of methods do organizations use to persuade people to kill themselves for the cause?

I'm not going to get into 'was the US right to change the Emperor's role.' Interestingly though, despite Hirohito's rennunciation of divinity, the Japanese royal family still conducts many rituals celebrating the direct link between the Emperor and his spiritual ancestor, the sun deity Ametarasu. So they still claim direct descent from a goddess, albeit indirectly.

I'm more concerned about the warcrimes tribunal at the end of the war. Very strange goings on in the course of that trial.
 
#10 ·
np quick, i'd explain but it's a little side-joke of mine; but i did tell some of the other mIRC people a bit ago if that's any comfort.
it's always good for a laugh because what it stands for is so true in the topics i post it in.
 
#12 · (Edited)
Joker said:
I think I would have to say that the 'homicide' bombers are mainly manipulated into their actions by charismatic leaders that have the ability to push all the right buttons on some very unfortunate people.
Hey Joker, good to see you're back :)

I think you have something there, the whole suicide bomber thing definitely has overtones of charismatic leadership and cult suicides.

One thing I would say though, I can't understand the value of deliberately changing an accepted term to show an attitude or a solidarity. I'm referring to the way you refuse the term everyone else uses and instead call these people "homicide" bombers. To me all this does is cloud the issue. If you call suicide bombers "homicide bombers" then what do you call IRA style bombers who DON'T kill themselves as a necessary part of the attack? They are also homicide bombers. If both kinds are homicide bombers then there are no suicide bombers. You are censoring the term we use to discuss these people.

"Suicide bomber" is not evaluative, it is just the term that has always been used to describe the action. By deliberately using a euphemism such as "homicide bomber" you are placing a value judgement and attempting (whether consciously or not) to change the meaning of the word. It is political correctness.

It's like in Orwell's 1984. If you remove/change a word then the idea it represents is removed/changed also. If you have no accurate word to desribe something, then how can you discuss it accrurately to try to understand it? If you can't understand something I would say you are at a huge disadvantage when fighting it.

Playing with labels for political reasons can be dangerous to thought.

On a totally different tack:
The_Giant_Mantis said:
Ultimately, the more I read into the kamikaze, the more I start to think that they were motivated more by peer pressure, and the feeling of social expectation, than by actual religious devotion.
Would you say that Japanese people are generally more susceptible to peer pressure than your average westerner (whatever that is) due to the highly coherent nature of their traditions? Seppuku was essentially suiciding because everyone expected it of you, so the kamikaze had precedents of this in their culture.

Perhaps there is a similar precedent in Arabic culture? Though I can't think of one off-hand.
 
#13 ·
robotnik said:
Hey Joker, good to see you're back :)
Thanks! :)



robotnik said:
"Suicide bomber" is not evaluative, it is just the term that has always been used to describe the action. By deliberately using a euphemism such as "homicide bomber" you are placing a value judgement and attempting (whether consciously or not) to change the meaning of the word. It is political correctness.
I understand your point. But I honestly don't do it out of political correctness. I do it to remind myself that despite whatever point using the term 'suicide' in reference to these attacks is supposed to make, it ultimately dismisses the loss of life that is caused by the action itself. Everyone remembers the 'suicide' bomber but the victims are absolutely forgotten.

I bet people here can tell me roughly how many American troops have died in this conflict so far; and maybe even the number of Iraqi civilian casualties; but I would be impressed if anyone here can tell me what the running total number of victims of 'suicide' bombers is without having to look it up. It's a statistic ignored by the media mainly because it points towards the level of evil at which the enemy operates. Since a great many media outlets are on the side of the insurgency these statistics go mainly unreported. .

Your mention of the IRA bombers was right on, and I can understand the confusion I may have unintentionally caused. Thanks for pointing that out.
 
#15 ·
robotnik said:
I'm trying to find a precedent in Arab (maybe even pre-Islamic) culture that could foreshadow suicide attacks. No luck yet.
That's the thing, it says nowhere in the Koran (Islamic Bible) that blowing yourself up for your country or faith is the right thing to do. In fact, it says quite the opposite, that life is precious and should be revered, not thrown away.

But try telling that to the suicide bombers who end up killing more of their own people than westerners anyway (at least with the suicide bombs in Iraq)...Geez, the Iraqi people really got the **** end of the stick, as the Americans tend to kill more of them than the extremists they're fighting as well. Poor bastards...:sleep:
 
#16 · (Edited)
I think there's some kind of paradigm with the Hashshashin (also Hashishin) a mystical and incredibly violent Islamic cult which existed from the 8th to the 14th centuries, and basically enforced its political will by murdering members of the elite. As well as being the origin of the word assassin in English, the term they used for one another was 'fedayeen', which apprently means 'one who is prepared to die for a cause.' This word is often used by rebels and militants in the middle eastern world today.

However, they weren't famous for commiting suicide, merely for their militant tactics, extreme religious views and cult like mentality, and willingness to take great risks in the name of advancing the cause.

But all religions have had their equivallents. The Jewish Zealots which existed around the time of Christ were equally fantatical, and ended up commiting mass suicide during their defence of Masada against the Romans. Or what about Buddhist Sohei in feudal Japan, a small group of whom saccrificed their lives defending a bridge against an army of Taira samurai. It's hardly unique to find fantatical, militant cults in history.
 
#17 · (Edited)
Well I got this from wikipedia (my bolding):

A common reaction to a suicide bomber is to assume that he (or rarely she) was motivated by despair, and probably hailed from a poor, neglected segment of society. Both President George W. Bush and the Dalai Lama have made this claim. However, anthropologist Scott Atran found in a 2003 study that this is not a justifiable conclusion. A recently published paper by Harvard University Professor of Public Policy Alberto Abadie "cast doubt on the widely held belief that terrorism stems from poverty, finding instead that terrorist violence is related to a nation's level of political freedom."

More specifically this is due to the transition of countries towards democratic freedoms. "Intermediate levels of political freedom are often experienced during times of political transitions, when governments are weak, political instability is elevated, so conditions are favorable for the appearance of terrorism"

In fact, most bombers are educated, many with college or university experience, and come from middle class homes. Most suicide bombers do not show signs of psychopathology. Indeed, leaders of the groups who perpetrate these attacks search for individuals who can be trusted to carry out the mission; those with mental illnesses are not ideal candidates. They often find solace in the ritualistic communion found in extremist circles, which are often headed by charismatic individuals looking for new recruits.


Which is interesting. As usual, it's most often the middle class kids who get all bent out of shape over ideas and start carrying out acts of violence. The poor kids are too busy just surviving.

The_Giant_Mantis said:
It's hardly unique to find fantatical cults in history.
No, I wasn't suggesting it was. Just wondering if there was a precedent in Arab culture.
 
#18 ·
I think people can get to a certain point where they feel completely helpless and powerless. Combine that with an institutionalized hatred for a certain oppressing force, people will do just about anything, especially if they have been indoctrinated that they will be martyred for it and their families will be blessed.
 
#19 · (Edited)
dr_nick22 said:
That's the thing, it says nowhere in the Koran (Islamic Bible) that blowing yourself up for your country or faith is the right thing to do. In fact, it says quite the opposite, that life is precious and should be revered, not thrown away.

But try telling that to the suicide bombers who end up killing more of their own people than westerners anyway (at least with the suicide bombs in Iraq
Actually you are both right and wrong in this point.

Islam is not just a religion of peace, but one of profound violence, and intolerance.

This is a very interesting and informative website:

http://www.harrington-sites.com/Quran.htm

It seems that the religion of Islam is at war with itself. The western world is only caught in it because the proponents of violence would be at the least, shunned and at worst, eradicated if they only targeted muslims. By blowing up the 'occasional' western infidel they perpetuate an illusion of Jihad in the name of Allah amongst their followers while attempting to overthrow and control all aspects of the entire Islamic religion.

That's why the terrorists have no problem killing the muslims in Iraq. If Iraq becomes a stable peaceful democracy it will only attract more and more of the peaceful Islamic followers. If that nation becomes strong enough to be free from terrorists the other peace loving followers of Islam may just do the same in their own nations.

I think this website is a translation of the entire Quran, I stopped clicking the "next" button at the bottom of the page after chapter 26 though, so I honestly don't know if it is complete. It shows the verses in 3 different languages. English ( I'm sure ), Arabic ( I think ), and Hebrew? ( I'm really not sure ). Anyway if you are familiar with all three languages you can judge for yourself the accuracy of the english translation, and if not, then I guess you will have to take the authors word for it as I had too. :)

http://www.al-bukhari.org/main.html
 
#20 ·
I bought myself one of those Penguin Koran's with parallel arabic text from the university book shop a few years ago, and read it pretty thoroughly. I like to understand other cultures instead of believing what I hear from the news.

I think linking suicide bombing to Islamic theology is a bit tenuous. Certainly the koran has passages that encourage war with non-believers, but only in the context of oppression. If muslims are living in a non-muslim society and are forbidden from practicing thier religion then allah says they must fight for their beliefs.

Judaism contains similar ideas. The old testament is pretty bloody, with the Hebrews slaughtering stacks of Philisitines, Akkadians etc under the pretext of religion, yet no-one ever accuses Judaism of being a violent and fanatical religion (uh, except the Palestinians).

Christianity is the exception among the Abrahamic religions as it specifically tells you to die rather than fight (turn the other cheek), like Jesus did. Don't know many christians who follow that one!

Was the behaviour of the branch Davidians the fault of the bible? They were "christians."

All religions have within them the potential for violence if you interpret them in that way. Even buddhism, regarded by most people as being almost cartoonishly non-violent; it is quite easy to disregard life if you believe it is all illusory and you get plenty of other chances. To Mantis's example of the sohei I would add the ikko ikki rebels, a sect of buddhist fanatics who managed to raise an entire army in medieaval japan.

I think the religious aspect of suicide bombers is pretty unimportant compared to the social aspect. IMO we should lay blame there before we suggest islam is to blame. The words in the koran help to justify it, yes, but they are hardly the cause.
 
#21 ·
robotnik said:
Well I got this from wikipedia (my bolding):

A common reaction to a suicide bomber is to assume that he (or rarely she) was motivated by despair, and probably hailed from a poor, neglected segment of society. Both President George W. Bush and the Dalai Lama have made this claim. However, anthropologist Scott Atran found in a 2003 study that this is not a justifiable conclusion. A recently published paper by Harvard University Professor of Public Policy Alberto Abadie "cast doubt on the widely held belief that terrorism stems from poverty, finding instead that terrorist violence is related to a nation's level of political freedom."

More specifically this is due to the transition of countries towards democratic freedoms. "Intermediate levels of political freedom are often experienced during times of political transitions, when governments are weak, political instability is elevated, so conditions are favorable for the appearance of terrorism"

In fact, most bombers are educated, many with college or university experience, and come from middle class homes. Most suicide bombers do not show signs of psychopathology. Indeed, leaders of the groups who perpetrate these attacks search for individuals who can be trusted to carry out the mission; those with mental illnesses are not ideal candidates. They often find solace in the ritualistic communion found in extremist circles, which are often headed by charismatic individuals looking for new recruits.


Which is interesting. As usual, it's most often the middle class kids who get all bent out of shape over ideas and start carrying out acts of violence. The poor kids are too busy just surviving.


No, I wasn't suggesting it was. Just wondering if there was a precedent in Arab culture.


I sense the person who wrote that had their view obscured by the bubble that most people in More Economically Developed Countries are trapped it.

In many countries an individual can live in a state of pure despair despite a reasonable economic situation. Personally I abhor this pitiful “oh woe is me” attitude as a plague on western society, as it blinds us to real hardship elsewhere.

This goes out to anyone willing to answer- note please state if you were in the armed forces at the time.

Have you ever faced starvation?
Was this near starvation not caused by lack of money?
Has there been a terrorist attack on your town or city?
Has your country had a civil war in your lifetime?
Has your country forgot a war on the home front in your lifetime?
Have you experienced a state of martial law in your lifetime?
Have you ever met someone willing to harm you because of your ethnicity/faith?
Have you ever met someone willing to kill you because of your ethnicity/faith?
Have you at any point lived in a country that was not a democracy?
Do you know anything about terrorists that was not provided by the media?
Was the above knowledge obtained first hand?
Have you lost friend to a terrorist attack?
Have you lost family to a terrorist attack?
Have you ever been at risk of being shot?
 
#22 ·
Deadly Nightshade said:
I sense the person who wrote that had their view obscured by the bubble that most people in More Economically Developed Countries are trapped it.
Possibly. If the research was done by a Harvard professor then I assume it's OK though. Those people are pretty smart, and I'm sure if you or I can see past the bubble then so can they. I like to think I'm pretty sharp but I think I would be hard pressed to get a chair at Harvard.

Deadly Nightshade said:
In many countries an individual can live in a state of pure despair despite a reasonable economic situation. Personally I abhor this pitiful “oh woe is me” attitude as a plague on western society, as it blinds us to real hardship elsewhere.
Then again, just because someone's situation may not be as physically bad as someone elses doesn't mean their despair is any less real. People live in their own worlds and I think a depressed person in Australia is just as unhappy as a depressed person living in a warzone.

There are happy people and angry/sad people in every place in the world, and it doesn't relate to their circumstances. It's about how they react to their circumstances.

As to your questions, the only ones I can answer (happily) are

Have you ever met someone willing to harm you because of your ethnicity/faith?
Yes, I have been assaulted because I am white by Aborigines many times in the town I grew up in and elsewhere in Australia.

Do you know anything about terrorists that was not provided by the media?
A little. My friend went to Indonesia a few years ago and accidentally befriended several members of Jemah Islamiyah. Despite what you would think from the media stereotypes they accepted her with amusement and tolerance, as she is half-indonesian but not muslim so they didn't expect her to be submissive. She said they were very confident and arrogant, and behaved like gangsters, and she didn't see much evidence of sincere religious fanaticism. She did get some interesting information about their beliefs and training though, and when she got back used it as an honours dissertation in sociology. This was before the Bali bombings and JI's jihad against Australia.

I'm sure some of the veterans have MUCH more interesting stories than mine though. Where is Certemplar?
 
#23 ·
Deadly Nightshade said:
Have you ever faced starvation? No.
Was this near starvation not caused by lack of money? Not Applicable.
Has there been a terrorist attack on your town or city? No.
Has your country had a civil war in your lifetime? No, but it was occupied by foreign soldiers.
Has your country forgot (fought?) a war on the home front in your lifetime? No.
Have you experienced a state of martial law in your lifetime? Yes.
Have you ever met someone willing to harm you because of your ethnicity/faith? Yes.
Have you ever met someone willing to kill you because of your ethnicity/faith? Yes.
Have you at any point lived in a country that was not a democracy? Yes, though not ostensibly.Do you know anything about terrorists that was not provided by the media? Yes.
Was the above knowledge obtained first hand? Yes.
Have you lost friend to a terrorist attack? Yes.
Have you lost family to a terrorist attack? No.
Have you ever been at risk of being shot? Yes.
A good number of the positive answers are so because I was a solider deployed in the Balkans for a tour, while I was in the army.

We had arrested a small number of fighters who were planning a rocket attack on a local village whose ethnicity was not their own. They made no distinction between us and the villagers as foreign invaders.

West Germany was, by the way, a foreign-occupied country until the Reunification.
 
#24 ·
robotnik said:
Possibly. If the research was done by a Harvard professor then I assume it's OK though. Those people are pretty smart, and I'm sure if you or I can see past the bubble then so can they. I like to think I'm pretty sharp but I think I would be hard pressed to get a chair at Harvard.
A professor at any University is just as capable of being blinded by their society than anyone else. I do not think War is really not one of those things you can sit on the outside of and truly understand it. Even all the knowlage in the world would be of little help towards understanding such a dark part of the human condition.
 
#25 ·
Deadly Nightshade said:
A professor at any University is just as capable of being blinded by their society than anyone else.
That's true of course, but I do think it's less common now than it would have been say 50 years ago, especially in the social sciences. This is due mainly to post-modern and post-colonial thought.

Very few academics in the humanities take seriously any longer the idea that history contains "facts," instead regarding it as a series of narratives. They also tend to agree that any statement says as much about the speaker as the subject being spoken on. Such inability to transcend one's own cultural mindset as you are describing is getting rarer and rarer, and fell out of the mainstream of academia in the 70s. When they ask a question they also try to find out what it means in the context of the culture.

This is not to say it's not there at all, but you don't get the same level of colonial arrogance that marked, say, 19th century anthropology. If a Harvard professor did something as relatively simple as find out the backgrounds of past suicide bombers and then note that they were mostly eductated middle-class people then I believe him/her.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top