A'Merka

[Kaylee]

Breeding hatred for ~4000 years. Ironic given modern religions are be based on a loving god.

I'm frankly glad our society is how it is. Religious people can be themselves within reason and so can everyone else. If roles were reversed I suspect myself and others would have been publicly executed a while ago.

A sobering thought.

[Jack Cade]

Bumblemus - the answer surely lies somewhere in between your pictures and MV's. It's not good enough to talk about who 'started it' - this has clearly been building for some time.

I don't have the answer as to why Islam, but I think it's interesting to look at China, which is routinely touted by papers over here as being the next big nasty superpower, poised to seriously screw over Europe and the US. Despite this 'looming threat', which has some rationale behind it, the person on the street doesn't seem half as worried about the Chinese.

Why is that? I think it has something to do with the fact that Chinese migrants leave all of their imperialism/jingoism/whatever in their own country. They tend to fully integrate into Western culture. Muslim migrants effectively bring a huge element of their culture over with them. The reason people get scared enough to make awful 'Islam is rising' posters is because of the perception of Muslims as sticking with their own growing communities, having no interest in the country they're in outside of the fact that it's a 'better' place to be, operating under their own internal systems of laws and procedures which is guarded against prying eyes (honour killings, etc) and generally, I suppose, acting as if they're still in an Islamic country.

I can't say exactly how much of that perception is made of paranoid ******** and how much has its roots in the truth. But from the perspective of the man on the street at least, I think that's 'why Islam'. And it's left to supporters of tolerance to try to decide what exactly is just bigotry and what's reasonable criticism of what happens within Muslim communities.

[Jack Cade]

Unfortunately, then there's also stuff like this:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20100905/twl ... d0ae9.html

[bumblemusprime]

Bumblemus - the answer surely lies somewhere in between your pictures and MV's. It's not good enough to talk about who 'started it' - this has clearly been building for some time.

I get that, and I got it when I made the post, but doesn't mean it didn't need to be said. From the Muslim point of view it's been building at least since 1948, and probably since the Brits carved up the Ottoman Empire. Not to mention the business with the Shah and the CIA, or Reagan selling Saddam enough weapons to thrash Iran... ffs, if you're Muslim then you've been hearing about war/terrorism involving Cousin Ahmed for years if not experiencing it.

As a buddy of mine said right after 9/11... "yeah, I'm sad, but why the hell is anyone surprised?"

But you're right, Jack Long Knife FockerBot Cade McBannedyKins. Because when Emvee posts a picture of a Muslim extremist attack and equates it with Islam in general, he might as well be arguing on Wideload's side and equating the actions of the state of Israel with Judaism. Jon Stewart is now bombing the Palestinians. Yaya might as well be a terrorist by this perception.

It's the great fallacy of "the new atheism" arguments condemning all religion for religious violence. Religion appears to be at the heart of all human conflict with some rare exceptions, so even though economics and non-religious cultural factors are also involved in all human conflict, it must be religion's fault. Correlation does not imply causation.

I'm going to repeat the same argument I've had with Emvee for years: religion takes a backseat to money. Yeah, religion's part of it, but it's all about the ******* money. Palestinians have less access to good water sources and less money to build the water infrastructure they need. Not counting the settlements, almost 40% of the major aquifer in the West Bank is going to Israel! We could go on about arable land in Palestine versus Israel, quality of medical care, quality of weapons manufacturing, etc etc... point is, this really isn't about Islam. Militant Islam is a convenient excuse for a marginalized people to act violently against the people they perceive as their oppressors, just as Zionism, after its original religious intent, became a big fat land grab.

(If that sounds like I'm assigning some nobility to Hamas and Al-Qaeda, I mean "the people they perceive as oppressors" could be the way the Hutu perceived the Tutsi as oppressors in Rwanda.)

I don't have the answer as to why Islam, but I think it's interesting to look at China, which is routinely touted by papers over here as being the next big nasty superpower, poised to seriously screw over Europe and the US. Despite this 'looming threat', which has some rationale behind it, the person on the street doesn't seem half as worried about the Chinese.

Why is that? I think it has something to do with the fact that Chinese migrants leave all of their imperialism/jingoism/whatever in their own country. They tend to fully integrate into Western culture. Muslim migrants effectively bring a huge element of their culture over with them. The reason people get scared enough to make awful 'Islam is rising' posters is because of the perception of Muslims as sticking with their own growing communities, having no interest in the country they're in outside of the fact that it's a 'better' place to be, operating under their own internal systems of laws and procedures which is guarded against prying eyes (honour killings, etc) and generally, I suppose, acting as if they're still in an Islamic country.

Several things: China is not perceived as alien anymore. When they were perceived as a heavily Communist country, things were different. Islamic countries are still run by a strange set of laws and subject to barbaric government policies, as China was in the 80s. Right now China is experiencing a delayed Industrial Revolution. That ain't alien, not to you and me and our despised inner Victorians. To my parents, China was Tianmen Square and gunrunners for North Korea. Utterly alien.

I went to Friday prayer a couple of weeks before 9/11. The entire sermon and much of the small talk was about maintaining faith in Allah when horrible things are happening to Muslims in so many places. There is something like six times the amount of Iraqi dead versus American dead. That's Muslims killing Muslims--for the most part, Al-Qaeda types killing guys like Yaya.

Say it again with me: THERE IS NO "ISLAM" TO FIGHT AGAINST. Anyone who has read the Old Testament and associated with a Reform Jew knows well that religion can be turned to as liberal an interpretation as it could be turned to a conservative one.

(goes to hit the books to prepare for inevitable argument with Emvee)

[Metal Vendetta]

I...

Seriously, MV? Seriously? You really think that if a couple of Christian fundamentalists had blown those buildings up, the collective US would now turn against Christian fundamentalists?

I seriously doubt the Christian fundamentalists would be having such an easy time of it right now. I think whoever perpetrated 9/11 would face a huge backlash.

Maybe we should talk about why Islamic countries have a problem with the West and their pet state of G-Damned Israel.

Not denying that. Yaya's question was "Why Islam? Why not India?" I guarantee that if the people in those planes had been Indians attacking the US in the name of India, there would be US troops all over the subcontinent, probably with the co-operation and support of the muslims in Pakistan.

But that's not what happened. And looking at this rationally, as Yaya imported us to do, the reason why the west is all pissed off with the islams is because on 9/11 they stuck their head above the parapet and shouted "Yah boo sucks America, we hate you!" There's no need for conspiracy theories that the west needed to invent another bogeyman after the end of the cold war because in this instance the bogeyman got out from under the bed and danced around waving a little sign saying "I am the bogeyman".

[Brendocon]

I dare say somebody (not me, I can't be arsed) could probably whip up an argument that is was pretty much the opposite. Al Quada deciding that America was the bogeyman and throwing a pre-emptive grenade under the bed.

[Metal Vendetta]

Nonetheless, this isn't a hypothetical situation. The most era-defining event of our lives was the biggest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor and it was carried out by Islamic fundies in the name of Islam. Yaya asking "Why Islam, why not India?" is like someone watching the first half of Transformers the movie and saying: "How come the Autobots are at war with the Decepticons and not, say, the Junkions? They're probably just as bad."

[Professor Smooth]

Nonetheless, this isn't a hypothetical situation. The most era-defining event of our lives was the biggest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor and it was carried out by Islamic fundies in the name of Islam. Yaya asking "Why Islam, why not India?" is like someone watching the first half of Transformers the movie and saying: "How come the Autobots are at war with the Decepticons and not, say, the Junkions? They're probably just as bad."

I am really all over the place here, but I think we can agree that it's a pretty complex issue.

1) Hawaii wasn't a state when Pearl Harbor was bombed. So, I'd argue the "American soil" comment.

2) While the 9/11 attacks were carried out by Islamic fundamentalists, it was done in the name of Allah. As bin Laden himself said afterwards, it was done as a reprisal for certain actions that America has taken abroad.

3) The "why not India" comment seems really poorly thought out. I can't really defend that.

Except that say...

4) AMERICA IS NOT AT WAR WITH ISLAM. If the Taliban and Al Qaeda were made up of Protestants, Lutherans, Jews, Evangelicals, or Hindus, the US would still have sent troops in an attempt to keep it from happening again.

I have to say though, the ton of Muslims (leaders and otherwise) that claimed the attacks as a victories for Islam (after the fact), really should shoulder the blame for a lot of the anti-Muslim sentiment in the US right now.

[bumblemusprime]

NOOOOooes. My awesome response deleted by Mac's silly policy of having iTunes pop up all the damn time.

[Kaylee]

NOOOOooes. My awesome response deleted by Mac's silly policy of having iTunes pop up all the damn time.

iTunes is in league with Islam! Or against it, I forget which. Or is it in league with Rob? Hmm...

[Metal Vendetta]

Or is it in league with Rob? Hmm...

I can guarantee that it's not - I took great pleasure in deleting it from my laptop just the other day. Bloody thing pops up more often than a bad penny.

[Best First]

i think the point of the "why not India/why now" statement was more along the lines of the West seeming to have something of a need for an external other to have a pop at.

While it’s not a sole cause - the existence of an external enemy has always been a way of cementing power and distracting from troubles at home, not to mention communism as an enemy specifically got a lot of people a lot of power and a lot of money (the other + capitalism) and to think that there are not those in the world who profit from conflict or the demonization of others, and seek to continue to do so is naïve. Not all of this is money, some of it is power – it’s much easier to appeal to the lowest common denominator, especially when you don’t have the wherewithal to do much else.

There are people stoking the flames.

On both ‘sides’ I might add – the notion of an outer enemy is used just as much by the people running Iran for example as it is Dick Cheney or indeed those who are true fundamentalists and want to rally others to their flag.

Others out of pure bile it would seem.

Which is not to say that there is not a lot complexity beyond that – but it’s certainly part of the picture.

Either way the question as to who seeks to profit + why those flames are stoked and why certain groups find themselves in the firing line is a sensible one to be asking and in no way as simple as a picture of exploding towers.

Of course I’m sure the people who initiated 9/11 would be overjoyed to see comments implying that Islam as a whole had attacked the west – radicalizing and dividing is exactly what they are after.

[Metal Vendetta]

Like it or not, that image of the exploding towers has shaped popular global politics for the past nine years and will continue to do so long after we're dead and gone. I think you're downplaying the emotional impact of 9/11 and - rightly or wrongly - the popular perception of islamic terrorists that has formed in the wake of the attacks. Everything that has happened since has flowed from those events, from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to the emergence of likely-successors-to-the-BNP-as-nationalist-nutjobs the English Defence League. And sure, people profited from those wars, just as people are profiting from the resurgence of intolerant marches and protests, but I'm just pointing out that Islam would have a lot easier ride of it if its guys hadn't indiscriminately killed a bunch of people.

Hell, it could have been disgruntled IRA terrists, angry at a perceived double-cross by Bill Clinton when he supported the Good Friday agreements who flew those planes into the WTC. How would things have unfolded then? Popular anti-Catholic movements? A War on Terror that was really a war on Catholicism (just as the real War on Terror is really a war on Islam, Smooth) and a new front opening up in Northern Ireland? US troops operating on British soil - and given its recent apalling press - the end of the Catholic church?

I'm just speculating, of course, but with 9/11 Islamic fundies brought themselves to the attention of the west, and conveniently or not the west was looking for a new bad guy, but it meant that everyone put Islam under scrutiny. Recent developments (like the fuss over the Danish cartoons) haven't helped Islam's image any, though I doubt that any society put under the microscope through a media looking to depict them badly would fare well.

I'm not denying the need for the west to have a usefully undefined and ever-present "enemy", I'm just pointing out it's completely disingenous to ask why India is not that enemy.

[Yaya]

I ask "Why not India?" because when Bush makes statements like"They hate our freedom" and "you're either with us or against us" regarding America's 'policing' of the world against 'anti-freedom' states, why not India?

Are you familiar with the religion-based caste system? Are you familiar with the status of women in India? And yet, the very same America who condemns the Taliban works closely with India. And I just want to point out, I have nothing personal against India. They don't try to push their beliefs on others, and I can respect that, though I disagree with them.

Pakistan had a democratically elected leader in Nawaz Sharif who was ousted in a military coup by Musharraf. Who did Bush support? The military dictator, Musharraf. What happened to 'freedom' then?

Need I remind those who forget, of which there are many, that the first gulf war, the one that failed miserably, "Operation: Let's run to save our Beloved Kuwait so we Can Steal Iraq's Oil", was pre-September 11. How many people do you think died in that war? How many hearts were torn apart from the loss of loved ones, on both sides, because of the greed of but a few?

Why is it so hard to fathom that when a party is unjust to a group of people, that a party from those people will in turn themselves be unjust right back?

Yeah, religion's part of it, but it's all about the ******* money.

This. This is it.

[Metal Vendetta]

I ask "Why not India?" because when Bush makes statements like"They hate our freedom" and "you're either with us or against us" regarding America's 'policing' of the world against 'anti-freedom' states, why not India?

Are you familiar with the religion-based caste system? Are you familiar with the status of women in India? And yet, the very same America who condemns the Taliban works closely with India. And I just want to point out, I have nothing personal against India. They don't try to push their beliefs on others, and I can respect that, though I disagree with them.

Holy ****, did you not read what I posted above? If it had been a bunch of Indians in those planes, blowing up the WTC in the name of India, then America would now be now trying to negotiate a messy pull-out from the Indian subcontinent after having deployed its troops there for the past nine years, and we'd be discussing the rights and wrongs of the caste system on here. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENED.

Pakistan had a democratically elected leader in Nawaz Sharif who was ousted in a military coup by Musharraf. Who did Bush support? The military dictator, Musharraf. What happened to 'freedom' then?

You make it sound like I support the neocons or that I think Bush was in any way a competent president. Bush was as dirty as they come, and his pre-existing business ties to Musharraf meant that he was always going to support him. That's politics.

Need I remind those who forget, of which there are many, that the first gulf war, the one that failed miserably, "Operation: Let's run to save our Beloved Kuwait so we Can Steal Iraq's Oil", was pre-September 11. How many people do you think died in that war? How many hearts were torn apart from the loss of loved ones, on both sides, because of the greed of but a few?

And now you've got the idea that I think either gulf war was a good move. I opposed both, I marched against the second one. For the record, I'm against the war in Afghanistan too. I don't agree with it in the slightest and I'd much rather that British and American forces got the hell out of places they don't belong.

You can play what-abouttery all you like, the fact remains:

Islamic fundies pull off the most high-profile terrist attack in history = Islam is going to have it tough for the next however-many years. I'm not trying to defend the actions of the US and British governments in response, I don't agree that their course of action was the best one, I'm just pointing out the futility of saying "Waaah, why is everyone picking on Islam all of a sudden?"

[edit] Just to make myself clear so we don't have to do this again, saying "What about India?" is a classic case of internet what-abouttery. It's like when I criticise Xtianity and the nazarene apologists pop up and say "Why are you saying these things about Christians? You'd never say them about Muslims, and Islam's far worse. No-one ever criticises Islam, waaaah!" (though in this example, they would be nazarene apologists who don't know me very well). It's not an argument, it's barely even a strategy, it's just a hollow device to distract attention from the real issues and avoid having to answer any of the points raised.

[Optimus Prime Rib]

I ask "Why not India?" because when Bush makes statements like"They hate our freedom" and "you're either with us or against us" regarding America's 'policing' of the world against 'anti-freedom' states, why not India?

Are you familiar with the religion-based caste system? Are you familiar with the status of women in India? And yet, the very same America who condemns the Taliban works closely with India. And I just want to point out, I have nothing personal against India. They don't try to push their beliefs on others, and I can respect that, though I disagree with them.

Pakistan had a democratically elected leader in Nawaz Sharif who was ousted in a military coup by Musharraf. Who did Bush support? The military dictator, Musharraf. What happened to 'freedom' then?

Need I remind those who forget, of which there are many, that the first gulf war, the one that failed miserably, "Operation: Let's run to save our Beloved Kuwait so we Can Steal Iraq's Oil", was pre-September 11. How many people do you think died in that war? How many hearts were torn apart from the loss of loved ones, on both sides, because of the greed of but a few?

Why is it so hard to fathom that when a party is unjust to a group of people, that a party from those people will in turn themselves be unjust right back?

Yeah, religion's part of it, but it's all about the ******* money.

This. This is it.

um. You do realize Bush has been gone for a couple years now, right? Not that Obama is much better mind you, but Bush is gone.

[Metal Vendetta]

Yeah, religion's part of it, but it's all about the ******* money.

This. This is it.

Mm-hm, yep, you're right. Those young British muslims who took it into their heads to blow themselves up on the tube? Totally in it for the money. Yeah.

[Professor Smooth]

Yeah, religion's part of it, but it's all about the ******* money.

This. This is it.

Mm-hm, yep, you're right. Those young British muslims who took it into their heads to blow themselves up on the tube? Totally in it for the money. Yeah.

I wish I could find that issue of Preacher. I think the quote is something like, "Those people who say that you should die for your beliefs? They're the ones you tell to go first!"

[Metal Vendetta]

I wish I could find that issue of Preacher. I think the quote is something like, "Those people who say that you should die for your beliefs? They're the ones you tell to go first!"

I like Terry Pratchett's take on it:
"There's no point dying for your beliefs because you can only die once, but you can pick up another set of beliefs on any street corner."
"How can you live like that?"
"Continuously!"

[Optimus Prime Rib]

I wish I could find that issue of Preacher. I think the quote is something like, "Those people who say that you should die for your beliefs? They're the ones you tell to go first!"

I like Terry Pratchett's take on it:
"There's no point dying for your beliefs because you can only die once, but you can pick up another set of beliefs on any street corner."
"How can you live like that?"
"Continuously!"

Jingo?

[Metal Vendetta]

Jingo?

Interesting Times, IIRC. There's the typical slimy figure exhorting his followers to die for the cause and Rincewind sees through it.

[Jack Cade]

Hmm. Surely too many generalisations are swimming around?

As far as I'm aware, Bush and Blair - however much their actions belied it - always tried to make it known that they considered the extremists as the minority, enemies of moderate Muslims and the Middle East in general as well as enemies of the West. This is because even they realised that 'Islam' and 'terrorism' are two different things, and that a kulturkampf doesn't benefit anyone.

Some Muslim extremists are merely manipulative, cynical men motivated by greed. Many others are probably lying even to themselves about their motivation - confusing their religion with their terror of a world of choices and freedom, uncertainty and real social responsibility. There's no question in my mind that this fear is somewhere at the heart of all religious-right politics.

Others probably have their own, more nuanced motivations. There's no sense in arguing either that religion has *nothing* to do with it, or that religion has *everything* to do with it.

At the same time, I think it's fair to say that Islam+terrorism makes a fairly unique beast in itself, and one has to, to some extent, make a cut between that, and why we're afraid of it, and Islam in general, which to my mind doesn't escape criticism once you set it aside from the terrorism.

In other words, I don't think it's good enough to answer "What's the problem with Islam?" by pointing to Muslim terrorists, either in its defence or in an accusatory fashion. I'd rather point to what's wrong with mainstream Islam, and deal with that in a separate course of discussion to one where we talk about why young men blow themselves and other people up, which is, I think, a question none of us can yet fully answer, and has to do with many ongoing serious global/social/cultural problems as well as religious ones.

[Yaya]

Yeah, religion's part of it, but it's all about the ******* money.

This. This is it.

Mm-hm, yep, you're right. Those young British muslims who took it into their heads to blow themselves up on the tube? Totally in it for the money. Yeah.

Exactly. If not that one, than most suicide bombings that occur throughout the world.

Ever wonder why most suicide bombings occur with the result being Muslims killing other Muslims? How will they explain that to Allah? I mean, how would they rationalize things like the Quran saying "if you kill one innocent human being, it is as if you killed the entire humanity" or the promise that "if you kill your fellow Muslim, you are guaranteed the fires of Hell?"

The primary motivation behind most suicide bombings is financial. Someone approaches a desperate man or women whose family is on the brink of starvation in some third world nation and gives them the promise that if they carry out this act for them, they will ensure that their family is well taken care of for the rest of their life. That person ruminates on that. At first, he may be disinclined to do this. But then, he rationalizes things, that his family will no longer be destitute. So he agrees to carry out the act.

And there are likely even more devious incentives, like family members being tortured or held for ransom by an enemy with the promise of release if they carry out the suicide attack.

I asked my uncle who lives in Pakistan why there are so many suicide bombings in Pakistan when twenty years ago there was never such an incident. He felt that the above scenario was occurring with greater frequency as the situation has gotten more desperate financially.

This is not to say that distortions of Islam are never a motivation for these acts. I do not deny that there are likely Muslims who, again, out of desperation, feel the act is permissible in war times, believing they will be granted Paradise for doing this. How they rationalize the killing of innocents when the Prophet (peace be upon him) gave clear instructions regarding war etiquette is beyond me.

But those are far, far less common than the one's motivated my financial desperation.


Jack, if you want to discuss the impact of Islam itself, I again would ask for your opinoion on the issue of Hindu's living in the West in greater numbers than Muslims and the clash their belief system has with Western culture. I ask only out of curiosity at how you think their belief should be approached? Even when they come to America, most Hindus follow that, with different castes marrying and socializing within different castes.

I keep going back to Hindus and India to make a specific point, not to make them a target. It's a legit point because, here in America, there are as many if not more Indian citizens than Muslims. If there is a clash of ideology with Muslims, surely there is a clash here (and with many other subcultures) that is or will be living in the West. How do you anticipate their assimilation into the world you feel we should be striving for?

[Brendocon]

Have we all seen Four Lions yet? That was good.

[Optimus Prime Rib]

Jingo?

Interesting Times, IIRC. There's the typical slimy figure exhorting his followers to die for the cause and Rincewind sees through it.

Ah. I knew it was one of the books I had. I havent gotten a Discworld book in a while though.

"May you live in Interesting Times"
Ancient Curse

I remember it was the Discworld version of China. It also featured Cohen the Barbarian (yes.. thats where I got the idea to name my first child Koen) and his mighty Horde.


Holy **** Im a huge ******* nerd...

[Jack Cade]

Yaya - I don't think the Hindu belief should be approached any differently to Islam, ie. shown civility and tolerance up until the point it clashes with human rights.

But I live in an area where over 50% of the population are Bangladeshi and most of them are Muslim. It's much easier for me to talk about the impact of Islam because it's all around me.

Incidentally, at school there were two guys I sat next to in class when we sat in alphabetical order. One was Hindu and one was Muslim, and I got on really well with them. I even remember us doing a fun 'Advert for Islam' video for RE homework that involved them drawing a beard on my face in marker pen (um...) Something I find slightly disconcerting is how free of religion we all seemed back then, and how both of them seem to have embraced theirs more as they got older, while I've got more and more atheist, despite having Christian parents. Hmm.

[Metal Vendetta]

Mm-hm, yep, you're right. Those young British muslims who took it into their heads to blow themselves up on the tube? Totally in it for the money. Yeah.

Exactly. If not that one, than most suicide bombings that occur throughout the world.

I'd say almost explicitly not that one:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 63853.html

Their families were hardly provided for, following the attack two of them were turned down for legal aid. Yet these were not poverty-stricken and destitute people before they chose to murder indiscriminately. They could all afford to fly to Pakistan for training, for example.

No, their motivation appears to have been entirely theological. Taken from their ringleader's final video statement:

I and thousands like me are forsaking everything for what we believe. Our drive and motivation doesn't come from tangible commodities that this world has to offer. Our religion is Islam, obedience to the one true God and following the footsteps of the final prophet messenger.

But I accept the 7/7 attacks (aside from the fact that they were copying 9/11, and of course the copycat muppets that followed them) are a relatively isolated example of the form.

Ever wonder why most suicide bombings occur with the result being Muslims killing other Muslims? How will they explain that to Allah? I mean, how would they rationalize things like the Quran saying "if you kill one innocent human being, it is as if you killed the entire humanity" or the promise that "if you kill your fellow Muslim, you are guaranteed the fires of Hell?"

Easy, just consult any Al-Qaeda training manual. According to a fatwa issued by Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, the killing of someone standing near the enemy is justified because any innocent bystander will find their proper reward in death, going to Jannah if they were good Muslims and to Jahannam if they were bad or non-believers. So, essentially: "Kill 'em all, let Allah sort 'em out." Problem solved. Besides, you already posted that:

Any violence that occurs from Islam will only be for just cause.

So where's the problem? If a muslim is fighting the jihad, he must be doing the will of Allah. All violence that occurs will only be for just cause.

The primary motivation behind most suicide bombings is financial. Someone approaches a desperate man or women whose family is on the brink of starvation in some third world nation and gives them the promise that if they carry out this act for them, they will ensure that their family is well taken care of for the rest of their life. That person ruminates on that. At first, he may be disinclined to do this. But then, he rationalizes things, that his family will no longer be destitute. So he agrees to carry out the act.

Seems unlikely. Not saying it doesn't happen, but I wouldn't say it was the "primary motivation behind most suicide bombers".

And there are likely even more devious incentives, like family members being tortured or held for ransom by an enemy with the promise of release if they carry out the suicide attack.

Again, this seems unlikely and more Hollywood than reality.

While reading up on this subject I found this: http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnf ... _db056.htm which makes for interesting reading.

...the common denominator among the bombers in 95% of the cases is that they're nationalist insurgents with a secular, strategic goal: ousting the military forces of democratic countries from land the insurgents believe is theirs.

Which states that the majority of suicide bombers before 2003 weren't even islams at all, but marxists - however I'd say that since then, what with the fall of the Tamil Tigers and the increase in bombings in Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, Britain and so on, the muslims must be catching up by now. Groups such as Al-Q have essentially co-opted the suicide bombing tactic, and they've found it works.

I asked my uncle who lives in Pakistan why there are so many suicide bombings in Pakistan when twenty years ago there was never such an incident. He felt that the above scenario was occurring with greater frequency as the situation has gotten more desperate financially.

While I agree that financial circumstances can play a role, the ideology of islam also plays a part.

Recent research on the rationale of suicide bombing as an effective technique to kill enemies has highlighted the importance of the religion of Islam as a driving force. While some scholars cite political and socio-economic factors, others agree that religion provides the framework for suicide bombing because acting in the name of Islam is regarded as martyrdom. Since martyrdom is widely seen as a step towards paradise, those who commit suicide while discarding their community from a common enemy believe that they will reach an ultimate salvation after they die.

So yeah, we're esentially arguing the same point from different sides. The situation plays a part and ideology (whether marxist, islamic or otherwise) plays a part in the motivation of suicide bombers. Where we differ is whether that ideology is useful in the first place.

[Best First]

Hmm. Surely too many generalisations are swimming around?

Yes and too many people convinced in the integrity of their own generalisations.

Can't be arsed.

Back to Punisher Max Volume 10.

[Kaylee]

Hmm. Surely too many generalisations are swimming around?

Yes and too many people convinced in the integrity of their own generalisations.

Can't be arsed.

Back to Punisher Max Volume 10.

I got that beat: Duke Nuk'em 3D on my iPhone!

[Jack Cade]

Oh now I want an iphone. :-(