Are Aboriginies superior?

[zenith-nadir]

Ya... I know... you are sick of Middle Eastern-themed threads. But I have a critical thinking question.

"European colonialists" stole Australia from the Aboriginies. They massacred their people, stole their water sources, nearly wiped out their culture and the colonial state actively sought to extinguish their identity. Frankly they were treated far harsher than Israel has treated anyone in the middle east.

Mabo v Queensland didn't occur until the 1980s and the principles of equality before the law and non-discrimination didn't occur until the 1990s. So for 200 years Aboriginies suffered greatly at the hands of the white "colonialists". Yet they still have never received any form of compensation or restitution under the laws of Australia.

So why are the Aboriginies not running around with bomb vest strapped to their chests blowing up white Australians on buses? Why are they not demanding Australians abandon all or parts of Australia? Why are Aboriginies not demanding the destruction of Australia? After all 200 years is a very long time to be occupied and oppressed.

Therefore the question is are the Aboriginies a superior race than Palestinians? Why did they deal with their situation so differently?

[Mercutio]

Where is Jared Diamond when we need him?

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Where is Jared Diamond when we need him? You mean the author and evolutionary biologist chap?

[a_unique_person]

There are numerous differences to the Palestinian issue and the aboriginal one.

However, a few points can be made.

The culture of the aboriginals was effectively wiped out for many of them. I think many people fail to understand just how importan this is to a society. Without one, social order just breaks down, and people die out or move on to another one if they can. The result of this is that there are many aboriginals living lives of despair and desperation, for which they are blamed. Alcoholism, petrol sniffing, drug abuse, domestic violence are rampant in many communities. None of this was a problem before the arrival of the Europeans. That aboriginal culture was sustainable and viable for many thousands of years till we arrived, makes me think that the reason for these problems is more to do with us, than them.

Given that they are now in that situation, how do they get out of it? I don't know. Only time, money, perseverence, etc. Not all aboriginals are in this situation, many have tried, and succeeded, in either adapting to living in our culture, (despite the widespread racism they come up against), or by living in isolated communities where alcohol is banned.

Now, if you think there is no anger, guess again. There is a lot of anger and resentment about white people. There are certain areas a white person does not want to walk around in at night. However, after two hundred years of invasion, I think the stuffing has been mostly knocked out of them. So, on that basis, Israel might only have another hundred or so years of violent resistance to put up with.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Now, if you think there is no anger, guess again. There is a lot of anger and resentment about white people. So why aren't they strapping on bomb vests? Why don't they start ambushing whites driving cars along the highways? Why don't they have parades where they burn effigies and scream "death to Australia!" Essentially why have they chosen such a different and distinctly nonviolent path?

[Freakshow]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
So why aren't they strapping on bomb vests? Why don't they start ambushing whites driving cars along the highways? Why don't they have parades where they burn effigies and scream "death to Australia!" Essentially why have they chosen such a different and distinctly nonviolent path?

Maybe it has something to do with Islam...

Yes, I said it.

[Skeptic]

Well, that, and that the Australian settlers were wise enough to kill enough to kill off 99% of the aboriginies in the first place.

[a_unique_person]

Jarod, on Australia

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/deakin/stories/s296979.htm

Another person on Aboriginal history

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/deakin/stories/s291485.htm

[Manny]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
You mean the author and evolutionary biologist chap? Speaking of which, and I apologize that this is off topic, is there a good critique of that book around? I used to think Dr. Diamond was Ed, but as I reread it and learn more I've got some serious questions about some of his conclusions. I'd like to see other perspectives on GG&S.

As to Aboriginies, here follows 100% of what I know about Australian aboriginies:







.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Well, that, and that the Australian settlers were wise enough to kill enough to kill off 99% of the aboriginies in the first place.

According to Jarod, most were killed off by disease, but those who were left were not treated much better.

As I have said before, many Australians are under the delusion that they owe the aboriginals nothings, and that any problems they have are all their own fault.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
So why are the Aboriginies not running around with bomb vest strapped to their chests blowing up white Australians on buses? Why are they not demanding Australians abandon all or parts of Australia? Why are Aboriginies not demanding the destruction of Australia? After all 200 years is a very long time to be occupied and oppressed.

Therefore the question is are the Aboriginies a superior race than Palestinians? Why did they deal with their situation so differently?

possibility A....The situations are not the same.
possibility B....Palestinians are just violent people.

I'm not going to try to change you from one view to the other....

[Freakshow]

Originally posted by The Fool
possibility A....The situations are not the same.
possibility B....Palestinians are just violent people.

I'm not going to try to change you from one view to the other....

possibility C...A bit of both

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Freakshow
possibility C...A bit of both

what...palestinians are just a bit violent or just a bit of palestinians is violent?

[Orwell]

Oh look another thread about the middle east! But this time, it's trying to go about it in a roundabout way! Didn't we already have this discussion?

[Orwell]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Well, that, and that the Australian settlers were wise enough to kill enough to kill off 99% of the aboriginies in the first place.

Thank you for that pearl of wisdom, oh "Skeptic"! What would I do without you?

[Orwell]

Before people start their usual round of "bash the muslim", I suggest you spend some time reading this:

What Makes Suicide Bombers Tick?
A new report provides essential info for filtering fact from fantasy. The President would be wise to study its conclusions closely (http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jul2005/nf2005076_7420_db056.htm)

Why do suicide bombers do it? (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/07/03/why_do_suicide_bombers_do_it/?page=full)

Maybe you should even buy the book, I dunno...

[Freakshow]

Originally posted by The Fool
what...palestinians are just a bit violent or just a bit of palestinians is violent?

The 2nd one. Fundamentalist Islam makes the justification of violence a bit easier than in most 1st-world nations. And it also contributes to the poor living standards of many middle-eastern nations. The world of fundamentalist Islam has mostly themselves to blame for their position in the world.

[Freakshow]

Originally posted by Orwell
Before people start their usual round of "bash the muslim", I suggest you spend some time reading this:

What Makes Suicide Bombers Tick?
A new report provides essential info for filtering fact from fantasy. The President would be wise to study its conclusions closely (http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jul2005/nf2005076_7420_db056.htm)

Why do suicide bombers do it? (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/07/03/why_do_suicide_bombers_do_it/?page=full)

Maybe you should even buy the book, I dunno...

So its okay to bash Christians (of which I am not; I am an atheist), but not okay to bash muslims?

It's not just a matter of what makes a specific person become a suicide bomber. It is a bigger picture of why life is such crap in the middle-east. Maybe their own beliefs have something to do with it? I would put more blame with their fundamentalist religious beliefs that I would anything anyone else has done to them.

[claimee]

Originally posted by Freakshow
So its okay to bash Christians... ?

[epepke]

Originally posted by Freakshow
So its okay to bash Christians (of which I am not; I am an atheist), but not okay to bash muslims?

Well, yes, there is an unwritten rule here and elsewhere that this be the case.

In any case, I'd suggest reading Orwell's links and playing with the numbers. It's fun, and it keeps the mind fresh.

The most fun way of doing this, I think, would be to make all assumptions to strengthen the conclusion that suicide bombing has nothing to do with Islam and see what we get. In other words, bending over backward to give the benefit of a doubt. I'll denote these assumptions with the letter A and a number.

Consider this quote:

Sri Lanka's Tamil Tigers, a Marxist-Leninist Hindu group opposed to religion, committed the largest number of suicide attacks, 76. The Kurdish PKK, which used the tactic 14 times, is headed by a secular Marxist-Leninist, Abdulah Ocalan. The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, another Marxist-Leninist group, and the al-Aqsa Brigade, which has ties to the socialist Fatah movement, account for a third of the attacks against Israel. Communist and socialist groups account for 75% of the attacks in Lebanon. Islamic fundamentalists, he concludes, were associated with about only half of the attacks from 1980 to 2003. And such fundamentalist Islamic countries as Iran and Sudan aren't producing any suicide bombers.

Now, since there are quite few real Islamic fundamentalists, this is not the same as saying that about only half of the suicide bombers are Muslim or live in a traditionally Muslim society. However, I think we can be pretty sure that Islamic fundamentalists are Muslim. So, the ratio of one-half is certainly a lower bound.

A1: Let's assume that the ratio of one-half is also an upper bound. We'll have to assume that, say, the PKK is run by the Campus Crusade for Christ, and that Fatah is made up of Mormons.

A2: Let's assume that just living in a traditionally Muslim area doesn't count, and that a suicide bomber actually has to be Muslim to count.

Now we need the number of Muslims worldwide. There are various estimates. Islamicweb.com gives the number of Muslims as about 1.06 billion. CAIR puts it at 1.2 billion. Adherents.com puts the number at about 1.3 billion.

A3: We'll take the biggest number, which would mean around 22% of the world population.

A4: We'll round that up to 25%

Now crunch the numbers. About one-half of sucide bombers are Muslim. About one-quarter of all people are Muslim. The conclusion is that the prevalence of suicide bombing amongst Muslims is three times higher than amongst non-Muslims.

Now, you can construct a variety of political or ideological opinions to try to explain this fact, based on whose ox you want to gore. However, it's not entirely obvious how this should be considered a telling argument to dissuade someone of thinking there's a connection between Islam and suicide bombing.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by epepke

Now, you can construct a variety of political or ideological opinions to try to explain this fact, based on whose ox you want to gore. However, it's not entirely obvious how this should be considered a telling argument to dissuade someone of thinking there's a connection between Islam and suicide bombing.

But if being Islamic causes people to do this, then they would have been going it since the creation of Islam.

[zenith-nadir]

Ok, I read the Jarod link...I read what makes suicide bombers tick link. I found this part telling:
Then there's the question of Islam. There may be non-Islamic suicide bombers, Gambetta writes. But ''we do not have even a single case of a non-Islamic faith justifying" suicide missions.

Gambetta makes a tentative cultural-historical argument, tracing the suicidal impulse in the Middle East back to the Iran-Iraq war, when thousands of fundamentalist Iranian soldiers marched into certain death against Iraqi tank formations. That strain of self-sacrifice then spread into Lebanon and Palestine and now Iraq, through a badly understood dynamic.I guess the only reason that I can come up with is that blowing yourself up to murder others has to do with religious and cultural factors which is unacceptable in the Aboriginal and Native American cultures - who, ironically have suffered far great hardships than Palestinians.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
Ok, I read the Jarod link...I read what makes suicide bombers tick link. I found this part telling:
I guess the only reason that I can come up with is that blowing yourself up to murder others has to do with religious and cultural factors which is unacceptable in the Aboriginal and Native American cultures - who, ironically have suffered far great hardships than Palestinians.

Which Jarod link was that?

[Unnamed]

Originally posted by epepke
About one-half of sucide bombers are Muslim. About one-quarter of all people are Muslim. The conclusion is that the prevalence of suicide bombing amongst Muslims is three times higher than amongst non-Muslims.And we all know that correlation implies causation.

[geni]

Originally posted by epepke

Now crunch the numbers. About one-half of sucide bombers are Muslim. About one-quarter of all people are Muslim. The conclusion is that the prevalence of suicide bombing amongst Muslims is three times higher than amongst non-Muslims.


your timeframe is flawed since it allows you to ignore japan.

[geni]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir

So why are the Aboriginies not running around with bomb vest strapped to their chests blowing up white Australians on buses? Why are they not demanding Australians abandon all or parts of Australia? Why are Aboriginies not demanding the destruction of Australia? After all 200 years is a very long time to be occupied and oppressed.

The first 100 odd years are meaningless since suicide bombing was not a technerlogicaly posible option. If we look at the histroy of sucide bombers you see that the person doing this existed in a very strong base culture (even if in the case of japan it was a rather recent invetion). In recert times that form of culture hasn't really existed for the aboriginies any more.



Therefore the question is are the Aboriginies a superior race than Palestinians?


The concept of race has no scientific meaning

[webfusion]

But if being Islamic causes people to do this, then they would have been going it since the creation of Islam.

Out of the Arabian Peninsula they rode, on camel and horseback. Sacking, looting, beheading and raping as they forced themsleves on the inhabitants of the greater region, far and wide.

There is a common misconception – reinforced by centuries of prejudice – that Islam spread throughout the world using a policy of “conversion by the sword�. This is not entirely accurate. http://www.themodernreligion.com/convert/sword.html

But it is accurate to some degree.
Although many authors have taken great pains to dispel the 'myth' of Islam by the Sword, the fact remains that at the core of Islamic history is the reality of the unification of the tribes of Arabia into a powerful medieval military force, one that overran the waning power of the Byzantine Empire and the Persians in the Levant.

They did not confront the Byzantine Empire with kisses and hugs. Then again, they didn't have C-4 either!
=================================

As for the Aborigines, I always loved their music.

didgeridoo (http://aboriginalart.com.au/didgeridoo/)

a_u_p, this is the link you offered on Jared Diamond:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/deakin/stories/s296979.htm

They disappeared because they failed to embrace/understand/accept an advanced technological civilization.
Native Australians arrived here about 65,000 years ago, yet as of the year 1788 they were still hunter-gatherers; they still had no agriculture, no metal tools, no writing, no politically centralised government, anywhere in Australia. In 1788, Europeans arrived, and within a short time, they created a modern society with agriculture, metal tools, writing and a politically centralised government.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by webfusion

They disappeared because they failed to embrace/understand/accept an advanced technological civilization.
Native Australians arrived here about 65,000 years ago, yet as of the year 1788 they were still hunter-gatherers; they still had no agriculture, no metal tools, no writing, no politically centralised government, anywhere in Australia. In 1788, Europeans arrived, and within a short time, they created a modern society with agriculture, metal tools, writing and a politically centralised government.

I think I understand where you are coming from.....

You make the same error with the aborigines as with the other people, I presume.

Jarod discusses exactly why you are wrong, in detail. There are several reasons why they lived as they did, and none of them are to do with 'failure'.

The Europeans didn't 'create' all these things in a short time! They already had that technology.

[Orwell]

Originally posted by epepke
Well, yes, there is an unwritten rule here and elsewhere that this be the case.

In any case, I'd suggest reading Orwell's links and playing with the numbers. It's fun, and it keeps the mind fresh.

The most fun way of doing this, I think, would be to make all assumptions to strengthen the conclusion that suicide bombing has nothing to do with Islam and see what we get. In other words, bending over backward to give the benefit of a doubt. I'll denote these assumptions with the letter A and a number.

Consider this quote:



Now, since there are quite few real Islamic fundamentalists, this is not the same as saying that about only half of the suicide bombers are Muslim or live in a traditionally Muslim society. However, I think we can be pretty sure that Islamic fundamentalists are Muslim. So, the ratio of one-half is certainly a lower bound.

A1: Let's assume that the ratio of one-half is also an upper bound. We'll have to assume that, say, the PKK is run by the Campus Crusade for Christ, and that Fatah is made up of Mormons.

A2: Let's assume that just living in a traditionally Muslim area doesn't count, and that a suicide bomber actually has to be Muslim to count.

Now we need the number of Muslims worldwide. There are various estimates. Islamicweb.com gives the number of Muslims as about 1.06 billion. CAIR puts it at 1.2 billion. Adherents.com puts the number at about 1.3 billion.

A3: We'll take the biggest number, which would mean around 22% of the world population.

A4: We'll round that up to 25%

Now crunch the numbers. About one-half of sucide bombers are Muslim. About one-quarter of all people are Muslim. The conclusion is that the prevalence of suicide bombing amongst Muslims is three times higher than amongst non-Muslims.

Now, you can construct a variety of political or ideological opinions to try to explain this fact, based on whose ox you want to gore. However, it's not entirely obvious how this should be considered a telling argument to dissuade someone of thinking there's a connection between Islam and suicide bombing.

You missed the point. Yep, suicide bombing is presently popular amongst Muslim extremists. But that's due to a set of historical circumstances. The fact that other groups have used the tactic in the past shows that it's not a "muslim thing". In the future, it is quite possible that groups that have nothing to do with Islam will use the tactic. You just need the right set of circumstances. By the way, I'm not at all surprised that muslim extremists have been responsible for the greatest number of suicide bombings. After all, there are a lot more muslims than there are, say, Tamils.

[Orwell]

Originally posted by Freakshow
So its okay to bash Christians (of which I am not; I am an atheist), but not okay to bash muslims?

It's not just a matter of what makes a specific person become a suicide bomber. It is a bigger picture of why life is such crap in the middle-east. Maybe their own beliefs have something to do with it? I would put more blame with their fundamentalist religious beliefs that I would anything anyone else has done to them.

Why do I have the impression that, while people here have no problem distinguishing between fundamentalist christians and your normal run-of-the-mill christian believer, the same nuances tend to go out the window whenever someone mentions Islam? I have no problem with "bash the muslim extremist". It's "bash the muslim" that gives me the heebie-jeebies. And I describe myself as an agnostic!

[RCNelson]

Orwell:
I have no problem with "bash the muslim extremist". It's "bash the muslim" that gives me the heebie-jeebies.
What do you think about "bash the extremism of the Koran?"

What do you think about "bash the extremism of the prophet Mohammed's behavior?"

FWIW, the overwhelming majority of Muslims are much better than the Koran, and much better than the prophet Mohammed.

[Freakshow]

Originally posted by Orwell
Why do I have the impression that, while people here have no problem distinguishing between fundamentalist christians and your normal run-of-the-mill christian believer, the same nuances tend to go out the window whenever someone mentions Islam? I have no problem with "bash the muslim extremist". It's "bash the muslim" that gives me the heebie-jeebies. And I describe myself as an agnostic!

Notice that I was used "fundamentalist" as a qualifier in my subsequent posts on the issue. It was indeed my intention to make a distinction.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Freakshow
Maybe it has something to do with Islam...

Yes, I said it.

It's just my personal speculation, but I often wonder if the violence in Islam wasn't picked up from the Palestinian-Arabs rather than the other way around.

I guess it's sort of a chicken & egg thing.

[hammegk]

Orwell: What percentage of moslems who are fundamentalists would begin to worry you? In today's world of opportunities, only one would be enough to worry me.

Does the existence of, say, Benny Hinn or Pat Robertson, worry you equally?

[Darat]

Originally posted by RCNelson
What do you think about "bash the extremism of the Koran?"

What do you think about "bash the extremism of the prophet Mohammed's behavior?"

FWIW, the overwhelming majority of Muslims are much better than the Koran, and much better than the prophet Mohammed.

Doesn't the same point apply?

For example you can say the same about Christians e.g. most Christians are much better then the Bible and much better then the messiah Christ.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
But if being Islamic causes people to do this, then they would have been going it since the creation of Islam.

That's true. If you make the assumption that cultures and societies never ever change for any reason whatsoever. We know that's true, right?

For example: Christians used to burn witches. This activity was directly linked to Christian ideology.

So it's obvious there are still witch burnings today in all countries with significant Christian populations, right?

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Darat
Doesn't the same point apply?

For example you can say the same about Christians e.g. most Christians are much better then the Bible and much better then the messiah Christ.

I'm currious. In what way would you find Christ worrisome?

[Freakshow]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
But if being Islamic causes people to do this, then they would have been going it since the creation of Islam.

I don't think being Islamic "causes" people to do this. But I do think that fundamentalist Islam provides people more motivation and excuses to do this.

It is a subtle but important distinction.

[Freakshow]

Originally posted by Mycroft
I'm currious. In what way would you find Christ worrisome?

It's the whole "hanging on a cross fetish thing". Its kinda creepy. Couldn't he have picked a different fetish? Like being whipped or something? Oh, wait a minute...yeah, he did that, too. :D

You'll have to forgive me. It is early, and I did not have much sleep last night. :( Pretty out-of-it and goofy-feeling this morning. :D

[Darat]

Originally posted by Mycroft
I'm currious. In what way would you find Christ worrisome?

"His" words in the bible. (Probably best if you'd like to carry on the discussion of my point on to start a new thread in "Religion..."

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Darat
"His" words in the bible. (Probably best if you'd like to carry on the discussion of my point on to start a new thread in "Religion..."

:rolleyes:

Nevermind, Darat. I'll just stop asking questions of you. You make it too much effort getting an informative answer.

[RCNelson]

RCNelson:
What do you think about "bash the extremism of the Koran?"

What do you think about "bash the extremism of the prophet Mohammed's behavior?"

FWIW, the overwhelming majority of Muslims are much better than the Koran, and much better than the prophet Mohammed.
Darat:
Doesn't the same point apply?

For example you can say the same about Christians e.g. most Christians are much better then the Bible and much better then the messiah Christ.
Yes, of course, most Christians are better than the extremism in the Bible. But I think you completely missed the point I was trying to make.

My point is that what needs to be bashed with regard to Islam is not just some Islamic extremists who live on the sidelines of Islam. What needs to be bashed is the extremism at the very core of Islam itself - the extremism of the Koran and the extremism of the prophet Mohammed.

By the word "extremism" I mean extreme cruelty, hatred, misogyny, bigotry, and superstition. When this extremism is found in a "holy book" or in a "prophet", we should be free to bash the "holy book" and "prophet" without apology. No holy book or prophet should be off limits.

Centuries ago, some very noble people bashed the extremism of the Bible. Much of the freedom we have in the Western world today would not have been possible without the Bible bashers of the past. If the Muslims are to ever have similar freedoms, the Koran and prophet Mohammed's behavior will have to be bashed.

Now getting back to the Aborigines - Could their lack of an extremist "holy book" or an extremist "prophet" have something to do with their tendency to not produce terrorists?.

[geni]

Originally posted by RCNelson
Now getting back to the Aborigines - Could their lack of an extremist "holy book" or an extremist "prophet" have something to do with their tendency to not produce terrorists?.


Terroism and sucide bomb are two different things.


However the answer in both cases is no. The italian red brigade and the british angry brigade shows relgion is not required for terroism to exist. Japan shows that the requirements suggested above are not needed for sucide bombing.

[Orwell]

Originally posted by RCNelson
Yes, of course, most Christians are better than the extremism in the Bible. But I think you completely missed the point I was trying to make.

My point is that what needs to be bashed with regard to Islam is not just some Islamic extremists who live on the sidelines of Islam. What needs to be bashed is the extremism at the very core of Islam itself - the extremism of the Koran and the extremism of the prophet Mohammed.

By the word "extremism" I mean extreme cruelty, hatred, misogyny, bigotry, and superstition. When this extremism is found in a "holy book" or in a "prophet", we should be free to bash the "holy book" and "prophet" without apology. No holy book or prophet should be off limits.

Centuries ago, some very noble people bashed the extremism of the Bible. Much of the freedom we have in the Western world today would not have been possible without the Bible bashers of the past. If the Muslims are to ever have similar freedoms, the Koran and prophet Mohammed's behavior will have to be bashed.

Now getting back to the Aborigines - Could their lack of an extremist "holy book" or an extremist "prophet" have something to do with their tendency to not produce terrorists?.

Well, I got no problems with bashing Islam in general, since I don't like religion much. But you should bash other religions too. Not only it will be fairer, but it also prevents suspicions of bigotry. Personally, I don't think the Koran is worse than the Bible (look at the old testament), and Mohammed seems comparable to, say, Moses...

As for the Koran producing terrorists: when interpreting holy books, people tend to choose and emphasise the parts that say what they want. For instance, american christian fundamentalists spend a lot of time on the old testament, and don't much care about the more recent biblical books.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Mycroft
:rolleyes:

Nevermind, Darat. I'll just stop asking questions of you. You make it too much effort getting an informative answer.


If you'd like to discuss the matter in more detail then the answer I have already given you then I'll be happy to do so in a thread in "Religion..."

[Freakshow]

Originally posted by Orwell
Well, I got no problems with bashing Islam in general, since I don't like religion much. But you should bash other religions too. Not only it will be fairer, but it also prevents suspicions of bigotry. Personally, I don't think the Koran is worse than the Bible (look at the old testament), and Mohammed seems comparable to, say, Moses...

You and I are in agreement here, Orwell. I have no problems bashing religion in general, and no problems doing much more severe bashing of the more extreme religous views and actions. I look at all religions equally in this respect.

I despise political correctness. There are some people, who tend to be on the far left, that will bash Christianity all day long, but start yelling "BIGOT!" as soon as someone does the exact same bashing of Islam. Curiously, this phenomenon seems to have started on September 12, 2001.

And of course, there are people on the far right that will bash any religion other than Christianity, but themselves seem incapable of finding anything wrong either with the general practice of Christianity or some of the more extreme actions that have been performed in the name of Christianity.

Hypocricy is not limited to the left or the right. I personally think both political extremes are just as hypocritical as the other. They are just hyprocritical in different ways, that's all.

[Orwell]

Originally posted by hammegk
Orwell: What percentage of moslems who are fundamentalists would begin to worry you? In today's world of opportunities, only one would be enough to worry me.

Does the existence of, say, Benny Hinn or Pat Robertson, worry you equally?

See, I'm more worried about road security, industrial pollution and hysterical political rhetoric than I am about muslim extremists. That doesn't mean I don't worry about them, I do, but I'm keenly aware that the chances I get wacked by a terrorist attack are much smaller than the chances I get killed by cancer or a car accident.

The existence of Benny Hinn or Pat Robertson (or someone like them) worry me more: muslim extremists have virtually no chance of gaining any kind of significant political power in the west.

[Zep]

MEANWHILE...! Back at the thread topic...

In reality, the differences between Australian aboriginal and Palestinian cultures and history is just SO different as to make the comparison fairly pointless.

Here's a reasonable commentary describing the problems and history of "assimilation" in Australia. (http://www.quadrant.org.au/php/archive_details_list.php?article_id=545) It's just a book review, but it gives a better idea. And the problems are not done with yet. Here's the Aborginal Tent Embassy outside our old Parliamnet house, carrying the torch.

http://perth.indymedia.org/storyuploads/9633/tent_embassy_2005_coroboree_for_sovereignty.jpg

[Meadmaker]

I can see one huge difference between the Aborigines and the Palestinians.

The Aborigines are a minority in their native land.

The Arabs are a majority.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Freakshow
I don't think being Islamic "causes" people to do this. But I do think that fundamentalist Islam provides people more motivation and excuses to do this.

It is a subtle but important distinction.

Fundy anything is what frightens me, Islam included.

[Freakshow]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Fundy anything is what frightens me, Islam included.

Agreed.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Orwell
Well, I got no problems with bashing Islam in general, since I don't like religion much. But you should bash other religions too. Not only it will be fairer, but it also prevents suspicions of bigotry...

My opinion is this is silly. If something deserves to be bashed, then bash it. To go out of your way to bash something else just to avoid the appearance of bigotry is itself a form of bigotry, and further it waters down the first thing you bashed which deserved it.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Darat
If you'd like to discuss the matter in more detail then the answer I have already given you then I'll be happy to do so in a thread in "Religion..."

No thanks. Not worth it.

[Orwell]

Originally posted by Mycroft
My opinion is this is silly. If something deserves to be bashed, then bash it. To go out of your way to bash something else just to avoid the appearance of bigotry is itself a form of bigotry, and further it waters down the first thing you bashed which deserved it.

You telling me that christian fundys don't deserve to be bashed?

Also, as an agnostic, that is someone who looks at all religions from the outside, I don't see a huge difference between christian hooey and muslim hooey. It is easy for me to switch between bashing one sort or another of monotheism, they both belong to that big blob called "religion". Maybe that's a bit bigoted of me, I dunno... ;)

[hammegk]

Yeah, keeping watching for the next Xian fundy suicide bomber ...;)

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Orwell
You telling me that christian fundys don't deserve to be bashed?

Not at all. In fact, there is a lot you can bash about them.

But in bashing them, I don't feel the need to bash Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Raelians, or anyone else.

The same is true in reverse. If I decide to bash Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Raelians, or anyone else, I don't feel the need to find an excuse to bash Christians.

You see, all these groups are different groups with different cultures, different traditions and different beliefs. What you say about the fundy Christian may not be applicable to the Fundy Muslim, which may not be applicable to the fundy Mormon

[Orwell]

Originally posted by Mycroft
Not at all. In fact, there is a lot you can bash about them.

But in bashing them, I don't feel the need to bash Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Raelians, or anyone else.

The same is true in reverse. If I decide to bash Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Raelians, or anyone else, I don't feel the need to find an excuse to bash Christians.

You see, all these groups are different groups with different cultures, different traditions and different beliefs. What you say about the fundy Christian may not be applicable to the Fundy Muslim, which may not be applicable to the fundy Mormon

True, but if you systematically only bash one religion, you will tend to attract suspicions of bigotry.

[epepke]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
But if being Islamic causes people to do this, then they would have been going it since the creation of Islam.

That's a spin. I said you could spin it.

It's one that I agree with, though. Islam is not a particular problem. All the Abrahamic religions and many of the others are drenched in blood. I already said this.

However, Islam is, right now, a particular problem. We might conceivably discuss how and why it has come to be such. We won't, though, because as you demonstrate, this forum is for quips short enough to serve as chants or fit on a bumper sticker. Anyone who tries otherwise is considered bizarre.

Enjoy!

[epepke]

Originally posted by geni
your timeframe is flawed since it allows you to ignore japan.

It's not my timeframe, Sherlock. It's the timeframe in the referenced article and book. Which was presented. And so I responded. Which part of this is so difficult to understand?

If I wrote a book about suicide bombing, it would be more comprehensive, but I doubt anybody here would read it.

[Darat]

Originally posted by epepke
That's a spin. I said you could spin it.

It's one that I agree with, though. Islam is not a particular problem. All the Abrahamic religions and many of the others are drenched in blood. I already said this.

However, Islam is, right now, a particular problem. We might conceivably discuss how and why it has come to be such. We won't, though, because as you demonstrate, this forum is for quips short enough to serve as chants or fit on a bumper sticker. Anyone who tries otherwise is considered bizarre.

Enjoy!

But is it Islam that is at fault? For instance it appears most of these problems are in areas of (compared to the EU & USA) extreme poverty (and not all in Islamic countries so Islam can’t be uniquely blamed for the poverty either), that seems to be common to them all whilst Islam is only common to some of them.

I’ll say it again it appears to be some strong ideology (of which Islam is of course one of them), combined with a sense of either real or perceived grievances of a nationalistic nature. If you use that hypothesis it seems to cover all of the suicide bombings we know of.

Now it could be that there is something unique about Islam of course that lends it to creating suicide bombers, but so far no-one seems to have put forward what that unique quality could be. (And why historically it hasn’t been apparent.)

I think that is a really interesting question and would be more productive to try and get to the root of why people will commit such terrible acts.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Darat
I think that is a really interesting question and would be more productive to try and get to the root of why people will commit such terrible acts.

Just as others think it is more productive to kill them before they kill us. Assad's work at Hama, for example.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Darat
But is it Islam that is at fault?

Fault, schmault. That's a moral issue. Rotsa ruck getting people to agree on that.

For instance it appears most of these problems are in areas of (compared to the EU & USA) extreme poverty (and not all in Islamic countries so Islam can’t be uniquely blamed for the poverty either), that seems to be common to them all whilst Islam is only common to some of them.

That's something. However, you also have to explain why so many of the Islamic terrorists are ridiculously rich or at least middle-class. At the minimum, you would have to show that there is some connection with their poor comrades.

I also have to point out that there was a plot in Colombia to hijack a plane and fly it into a building. However, they couldn't find anybody who would do it, even when they offered a $2 million dollar incentive for the family of the suicide pilot. $2M is a hell of a lot of money in Colombia.

In any event, my intention was to deconstruct a specific point about the idea that suicide bombing has nothing to do with Islam. I'm pretty sure that you could come up with a nearly infinite number of other points. Some of these I might be able to deconstruct. Others, perhaps not. But the exercise would be futile, because the idea that Islam is independent of suicide bombing is ideological.

I’ll say it again it appears to be some strong ideology (of which Islam is of course one of them), combined with a sense of either real or perceived grievances of a nationalistic nature.

Not only a strong ideology, but an ideology that defines suicide, under certain conditions, as being advantageous. If there's another ideology than Islam that provides this, in the current day, I'd like to hear about it. There wasn't one in Colombia, obviously.

Now it could be that there is something unique about Islam of course that lends it to creating suicide bombers, but so far no-one seems to have put forward what that unique quality could be.

OK, I'm game. It is the idea that dying in jihad is a ticket to heaven.

(And why historically it hasn’t been apparent.)

I'm not so sure that it hasn't been. It's just that C4 and dynamite are easier to get these days. I'm sure that there were quite a few sword-wielders in the past that have been spurred on by the idea of Paradise.

However, there may be something about the current time. There has been a reaction against modernism in most places. In the US, and increasingly in the UK and Australia, this has led to increasing fundamentalism. I can't rule out the possibility that the increase in fundamentalism is due to Toffler's "Future Shock." Things are changing rather quickly in all societies.

I think that is a really interesting question and would be more productive to try and get to the root of why people will commit such terrible acts.

It would be, though as I think I have said before, I don't think it's likely to happen in the bumper-sticker and slogan factory of this forum.

[Darat]

Originally posted by epepke
Fault, schmault. That's a moral issue. Rotsa ruck getting people to agree on that.


The "cause" then. :)

Originally posted by epepke

That's something. However, you also have to explain why so many of the Islamic terrorists are ridiculously rich or at least middle-class. At the minimum, you would have to show that there is some connection with their poor comrades.


Good point, I think Pape's (sp?) research did show that even in the poorest countries the majority of suicide bombers are of better then average income.

Originally posted by epepke

I also have to point out that there was a plot in Colombia to hijack a plane and fly it into a building. However, they couldn't find anybody who would do it, even when they offered a $2 million dollar incentive for the family of the suicide pilot. $2M is a hell of a lot of money in Colombia.


Any links? (Not that I doubt your summary - it just sounds an interesting story, I'd like to get the background.) But perhaps this supports my hypothesis? I.e it requires a surrendering of the self to an ideology before death becomes acceptable, at any price.

Originally posted by epepke

In any event, my intention was to deconstruct a specific point about the idea that suicide bombing has nothing to do with Islam. I'm pretty sure that you could come up with a nearly infinite number of other points. Some of these I might be able to deconstruct. Others, perhaps not. But the exercise would be futile, because the idea that Islam is independent of suicide bombing is ideological.


I agree, I don’t think it can be separated from the bombings that are say happening in Iraq at the moment, it's like trying to separate Christianity from the NI conflict, it's just not possible since the societies themselves are reflections of their religious ideologies. Islam is certainly used to create suicide bombers, I can't see with the evidence available how anyone could disagree with that. However that doesn’t mean (in my opinion) that Islam is the cause of the suicide bombings.


Originally posted by epepke

Not only a strong ideology, but an ideology that defines suicide, under certain conditions, as being advantageous. If there's another ideology than Islam that provides this, in the current day, I'd like to hear about it. There wasn't one in Colombia, obviously.


Slightly disagree with you, I think it is any ideology that can convince people the "cause" (whether that be Marxism or Islam) itself is worth more than an individual’s life.

Originally posted by epepke

OK, I'm game. It is the idea that dying in jihad is a ticket to heaven.


Yet we have instances of other ideologies that actually reject anything but the material world i.e. you die and that's it but still manage to convince people their death is a worthwhile price to pay for the cause.

Is the "reward mechanism" of Islam unique to it (I know its specific details are)? (I'll return to the "no true Scotsman" problem in a moment.)

Originally posted by epepke

I'm not so sure that it hasn't been. It's just that C4 and dynamite are easier to get these days. I'm sure that there were quite a few sword-wielders in the past that have been spurred on by the idea of Paradise.


We can also point to (as an example) Christians who also believed that, that’s why my inclination is to always think such behaviour is deeper then religion and more to do with human nature itself.

Originally posted by epepke

However, there may be something about the current time. There has been a reaction against modernism in most places. In the US, and increasingly in the UK and Australia, this has led to increasing fundamentalism. I can't rule out the possibility that the increase in fundamentalism is due to Toffler's "Future Shock." Things are changing rather quickly in all societies.
…snip…



And this is my "no True Scotsman" point; Islam like most other major religions is not homogenous. There are quite striking differences between the different sects and Islam has less hierarchy then most of the other major religions. For instance a Bishop in the CoE and RC speaks with the authority of their sect, yet an Imam (except I believe for Shiite Muslims) speaks for nothing more then his opinion and of course his followers, so it is much harder I think to say what "Islam" is then it is even to say what "Christianity" is and there have been enough debates about what makes a "TRUE Christian" a Christian. I have heard and read many Muslims and Imams state that a suicide bomber is not following Islam, that Islam does not allow such killings.

It makes the whole thing even harder to discuss as our tendency to generalise e.g. "Islam is...." may in fact prevent us from getting to the root of the problem.


(Edited for lots.)

[Beerina]

Originally posted by Freakshow
Maybe it has something to do with Islam...

Yes, I said it.

Nah, maybe it has something to do with not having a hundred million aboriginals in surrounding states with lots of oil and money telling them they should have their own place. Maybe if there were two dozen aboriginal dictatorships around there, whose leaders were using their plight as an age-old method of control over their own populations: look at what the evil Aussies are doing to your bretheren. Pay no attention to the miserable conditions I have provided for you.


mmmmmm....could that be it?

[Freakshow]

Originally posted by Beerina
Nah, maybe it has something to do with not having a hundred million aboriginals in surrounding states with lots of oil and money telling them they should have their own place. Maybe if there were two dozen aboriginal dictatorships around there, whose leaders were using their plight as an age-old method of control over their own populations: look at what the evil Aussies are doing to your bretheren. Pay no attention to the miserable conditions I have provided for you.


mmmmmm....could that be it?

Yep, that too. :)

I've always said...if the surrounding arab states want the Palestinians to have their own country so bad, why don't THEY give up some land for it? These "Palestinian lands" were part of arab countries before 1967. They were not a Palestinian state. If the arab nations really cared about Palestinians having their own state so much, they would have given them that land prior to 1967, when it was theirs to give.

So...maybe...the don't really care? Maybe they just use the Palestinians as pawns? mmmmmm...could that be it? ;)

[epepke]

Originally posted by Darat
The "cause" then. :)

I don't really know. I think that it's one of the causes, yes. It's implicated in the causal chain.

Ultimately, though, finding the cause is about as meaningless as finding the gene that causes a particular condition. Usually, all you can do is determine what happens if a certain gene is present versus when it is absent.

Obviously, Islam by itself is not the cause, because there are lots of Muslim-controlled countries that don't produce any suicide bombers.

Any links? (Not that I doubt your summary - it just sounds an interesting story, I'd like to get the background.)

I think it was the second link that was posted. (My first reply referred to the first link.) However, it's off the screen now, and I'm too lazy to open another window.

But perhaps this supports my hypothesis? I.e it requires a surrendering of the self to an ideology before death becomes acceptable, at any price.

In my estimation, the evidence is that your hypothesis is correct.

Slightly disagree with you, I think it is any ideology that can convince people the "cause" (whether that be Marxism or Islam) itself is worth more than an individual’s life.

Probably. However, how many ideologies, right now, in the present time, actually do this? You also have to show that it actually happens, and that it happens severely enough to result in suicide bombings, even those of schoolchildren.

Seriously, I think that the Cocoa development environment is superior to the Microsoft Foundation Classes, and I have spent quite a few hours of my life in service of this ideology, but I'm not going to kill myself to blow up a bus full of schoolchildren for that.

Is the "reward mechanism" of Islam unique to it (I know its specific details are)? (I'll return to the "no true Scotsman" problem in a moment.)

Right now, it seems to be that Islam is the leader. I'll leave it at that. I'm sure I wouldn't have had much fun during the Spanish Inquisition, either, but I'm not that old, so I consider it over.

And this is my "no True Scotsman" point; Islam like most other major religions is not homogenous. There are quite striking differences between the different sects and Islam has less hierarchy then most of the other major religions.

Of course, that's true. I'm not sure that it means much, though. There's a wide variation amongst schizophrenics as well. Most have no problem with living amongst people, and they're interesting to talk to.

But when someone holes himself up in the Capitol with a gun and sends out a demand for a bottle of Jack Daniels and 666 jelly doughnuts (which a member of the FSU student Monarchy Party did a few years ago), well, then, hells yeah, it gots somethin' to do with schizophrenia, dude.

[Orwell]

Originally posted by hammegk
Yeah, keeping watching for the next Xian fundy suicide bomber ...;)

Why this fixation on suicide bombers? Is a terrorist act worse because the perp blows himself with his victims?

[Freakshow]

Originally posted by Orwell
Why this fixation on suicide bombers? Is a terrorist act worse because the perp blows himself with his victims?

Actually, I'd much rather be blown up by an Islamic terrorist than have to go through some of the tortures of the Inquisition at the hands of Christians. :eek:

[epepke]

Originally posted by Orwell
Why this fixation on suicide bombers? Is a terrorist act worse because the perp blows himself with his victims?

What matters is that it's different, and we're trying to plumb the differences.

If you're not interested in that, it's OK.

[Orwell]

Maybe we should talk about why most terrorist acts directed against the west these days are committed by Islamic fundamentalists who use, on occasion (but typically very spectacular occasions), suicide bombers.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Freakshow
Actually, I'd much rather be blown up by an Islamic terrorist than have to go through some of the tortures of the Inquisition at the hands of Christians. :eek:
Some of us try to accept it is the 21st century rather than the 15th. The moslems had a hand in the situations that led up to the Inquisition after a few hundred years, iirc.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Orwell
Maybe we should talk about why most terrorist acts directed against the west these days are committed by Islamic fundamentalists who use, on occasion (but typically very spectacular occasions), suicide bombers.

OK, but first one would have to show that this is true.

We have what seems to be a fairly decent fact-based study, the first of its kind, showing about half of all suicide bombers to have been Islamic fundamentalists.

I don't know of a fact-based study for the notion that "most terrorist acts directed against the west these days are committed by Islamic fundamentalists." So it's a bit of a non-starter.

In order to get there, we'd have to come to a consensus about what contitutes a "terrorist act." From what I've read here, some very hot places will get very cold before that happens.

Then we have to define "the west." Is Greece in "the west"? How about the Turkey/Cyprus conflicts? Is neither, one, or both "the west"?

All that would have to be settled before any meaningful discussion. Wake me in the 25th century, OK?

[Freakshow]

Originally posted by hammegk
Some of us try to accept it is the 21st century rather than the 15th. The moslems had a hand in the situations that led up to the Inquisition after a few hundred years, iirc.

I think you missed my point entirely. My point was more about the debate itself, and less about the issue being debated.

[Beerina]

Originally posted by Freakshow
Yep, that too. :)

I've always said...if the surrounding arab states want the Palestinians to have their own country so bad, why don't THEY give up some land for it? These "Palestinian lands" were part of arab countries before 1967. They were not a Palestinian state. If the arab nations really cared about Palestinians having their own state so much, they would have given them that land prior to 1967, when it was theirs to give.

So...maybe...the don't really care? Maybe they just use the Palestinians as pawns? mmmmmm...could that be it? ;)

I knew a guy at work who was a "Palestinian Syrian", who told me time and again the Syrian government plowed his village under, literally.

The Palestinians are tolerated not because they're "fellow Muslims", but because they're useful as an "enemy of my enemy is my friend" tool by each nation's local dicatator. "Look, my population, how I'm helping them! Pay no attention to the little kleptocracy behind the curtain..."

[Orwell]

Originally posted by epepke
OK, but first one would have to show that this is true.

We have what seems to be a fairly decent fact-based study, the first of its kind, showing about half of all suicide bombers to have been Islamic fundamentalists.

I don't know of a fact-based study for the notion that "most terrorist acts directed against the west these days are committed by Islamic fundamentalists." So it's a bit of a non-starter.

In order to get there, we'd have to come to a consensus about what contitutes a "terrorist act." From what I've read here, some very hot places will get very cold before that happens.

Then we have to define "the west." Is Greece in "the west"? How about the Turkey/Cyprus conflicts? Is neither, one, or both "the west"?

All that would have to be settled before any meaningful discussion. Wake me in the 25th century, OK?

Taking the easy way out, eh? ;) Nah, don't worry, I've got out of many a long arduous discussion by using the same tactic...

[Orwell]

Originally posted by hammegk
Some of us try to accept it is the 21st century rather than the 15th. The moslems had a hand in the situations that led up to the Inquisition after a few hundred years, iirc.

I find these quips about "civilisation" pretty funny! Look at the XXth century: colonialism, two world wars, the cold war... I don't think the West is well placed to go around giving lessons in "civilisation" to anyone...

[epepke]

Originally posted by Orwell
Taking the easy way out, eh? ;) Nah. don't worry, I've got out of many a long arduous discussion by using the same tactic...

Well, yeah. I'm getting sick of this politics crap. It seems to go like this:

1) Choose a political affiliation. Base this choice on how it fits your lifestyle. If you're a college student, you'll probably want to choose Left, unless you really enjoy wearing ties, in which you should choose Right. If you're rich, you also want to choose Left, unless you live in New York or Chicago or the Bay Area, in which you should choose Left. If you like dope, choose Left. If you like terrible beer, choose Right.

2) Find people, either from your social circle or in the public eye, who also choose the same affiliation. Say the same things they do. Blame everyone else.

3) If you are conflicted, don't think. "Never be tempted to see the other person's point of view, because they have different desires, different certainties, and different targets for blame. Consideration of another's perspective, even for a moment, can lead to thought." Willie 37:1-7

4) Facts are for filling out your preconceived notions and making them plausible. There are no other uses for facts. For example, if you choose Left, you must believe in anthropogenic global warming, and if you choose Right, you must disbelieve in it. Whether it is true or not is of no importance whatsoever. What matters is that you adopt the right stance and accuse anyone who thinks differently of anything you can come up with, without, of course, thinking about it at all.

5) You may violate these rules somewhat, but only in the context of the lifestyle decision of being a maverick or to confuse your opponents. All violations must be arbitrary and arrived at without thought.

6) If you must think, minimize it as much as possible.

[Orwell]

Originally posted by epepke
Well, yeah. I'm getting sick of this politics crap. It seems to go like this:

1) Choose a political affiliation. Base this choice on how it fits your lifestyle. If you're a college student, you'll probably want to choose Left, unless you really enjoy wearing ties, in which you should choose Right. If you're rich, you also want to choose Left, unless you live in New York or Chicago or the Bay Area, in which you should choose Left. If you like dope, choose Left. If you like terrible beer, choose Right.

2) Find people, either from your social circle or in the public eye, who also choose the same affiliation. Say the same things they do. Blame everyone else.

3) If you are conflicted, don't think. "Never be tempted to see the other person's point of view, because they have different desires, different certainties, and different targets for blame. Consideration of another's perspective, even for a moment, can lead to thought." Willie 37:1-7

4) Facts are for filling out your preconceived notions and making them plausible. There are no other uses for facts. For example, if you choose Left, you must believe in anthropogenic global warming, and if you choose Right, you must disbelieve in it. Whether it is true or not is of no importance whatsoever. What matters is that you adopt the right stance and accuse anyone who thinks differently of anything you can come up with, without, of course, thinking about it at all.

5) You may violate these rules somewhat, but only in the context of the lifestyle decision of being a maverick or to confuse your opponents. All violations must be arbitrary and arrived at without thought.

6) If you must think, minimize it as much as possible.

Well, I do have my political preferences, but I try not to be too blinded by them... Although I often don't succeed... We don't always realise when our ideological preferences influence us more than the facts, n'est-ce pas?

[Darat]

Originally posted by epepke
Well, yeah. I'm getting sick of this politics crap. It seems to go like this:...snip...

Nomination worthy.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Orwell
Why this fixation on suicide bombers? Is a terrorist act worse because the perp blows himself with his victims?

Another interesting question that I think perhaps should make us question our own cultural bias.

I'm not sure about the USA but I know that in the UK suicide used to be illegal (if you attempted suicide and was unsuccessful you could be prosecuted) and still carries a great stigma.

The reason would seem to be that the dominate Christian sect for most of the history of the “west� (and today), the Roman Catholic Church decided that suicide was a terrible sin (and still holds this view). So it would appear our culture (the “West�) has an ingrained attitude that stems from a long held religious belief about suicide. This may mean that we judge suicide bombings as being somehow “worse� because someone commits suicide during the act rather then judging them on the severity of the act of terrorism itself.

[Giz]

Originally posted by Orwell
I find these quips about "civilisation" pretty funny! Look at the XXth century: colonialism, two world wars, the cold war... I don't think the West is well placed to go around giving lessons in "civilisation" to anyone...

Yes well, to paraphrase Sir Winston "Western civilisation is the worst form of civilisation... except for all the others."

[Orwell]

Originally posted by Giz
Yes well, to paraphrase Sir Winston "Western civilisation is the worst form of civilisation... except for all the others."

"Western democracy is the worst form of democracy... except for all the others." "Western science is the worst form of science... except for all the others."
Ok, no problem here...

But...
"Western violence is the worst form of violence... except for all the others."
Uh-oh! ;)

We were talking about violence, my comment was essentially about violence. That's why I put civilisation in quotation marks, that's the word hammegk used...

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Orwell
Why this fixation on suicide bombers? Is a terrorist act worse because the perp blows himself with his victims?

Well, turn it around and ask. "Why do they use suicie terror?"

It's a tactical choice. Why? Think about it, if you wanted to kill a bunch of random civilizns, couldn't you figure out a way to do it where you lived to do it again?

[epepke]

Originally posted by Darat
Another interesting question that I think perhaps should make us question our own cultural bias.

I'm not sure about the USA but I know that in the UK suicide used to be illegal (if you attempted suicide and was unsuccessful you could be prosecuted) and still carries a great stigma.

In the USA, matters like this are handled by the laws of the individual states, so they have historically differed. However, in the past, suicide was a felony in many states. I don't think that it is so any more. We used to joke that the penalty was death. The rationale, when such was offered, was that police had powers to prevent a felony that they did not have when a felony was not committed. So this gave the police powers to stop suicides. This has largely been supplanted by temporary "mental health" laws, such as Florida's Baker Act, which was ironically (given Florida's current reputation) a really great liberal reform.

The reason would seem to be that the dominate Christian sect for most of the history of the “west� (and today), the Roman Catholic Church decided that suicide was a terrible sin (and still holds this view). So it would appear our culture (the “West�) has an ingrained attitude that stems from a long held religious belief about suicide.

Did you ever see Penn and Teller Get Killed? I hope that I'm not giving anything away by saying that Penn and Teller get killed. Also some other characters, mostly by suicide. There's a helicopter pull-back at the end with Penn doing a voice-over, saying "And this pull-back isn't us going to heaven. All the major religions condemn suicide."

This isn't quite true, of course.

This may mean that we judge suicide bombings as being somehow “worse� because someone commits suicide during the act rather then judging them on the severity of the act of terrorism itself.

There's also an interesting congruence between what was discovered from the behavioral and cognitive psychology studies of the 1950s. There seems to be a tendency to people to make stronger moral judgements of an individual's actions based only on the severity of the results on the person committing the action.

One study I remember involved presenting a story of someone having a couple of drinks and riding a motorbike. He gets into an accident. The only difference between the stories was the severity of the accident in its effects on the rider, from a near miss to broken bones to being crippled for life to death. There was no difference with respect to harm for others. The people tested consistently and strongly judged the action of drinking then riding as worse when the results to him were worse.

So, while I think there is something to what you say, and it may be based on religion (I doubt that psychologists in the 1950s US has too many people that weren't Christians or Jews to work with), it also may extend beyond a specific Catholic provision against willful suicide.

[Orwell]

Originally posted by Mycroft
Well, turn it around and ask. "Why do they use suicie terror?"

It's a tactical choice. Why? Think about it, if you wanted to kill a bunch of random civilizns, couldn't you figure out a way to do it where you lived to do it again?

When it comes to terrorism, which often involves doing the maximum amount of damage with the minimum amount of effort, suicide attacks seem to be pretty tactically efficient. Also, maybe our cultural aversion to suicide is one of the reasons why suicide bombing has sometimes been used in attacks against western targets. The London bombers, for instance, probably knew how much additional shock and revulsion their blowing themselves up along with their victims would cause. They want our attention, and suicide tactics helps them get our attention.

But we should keep in mind that our aversion to suicide is mostly a cultural thing... Personally, I don't think that a terrorist act is worse because the perp blows himself with his victims.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Orwell
When it comes to terrorism, which often involves doing the maximum amount of damage with the minimum amount of effort, suicide attacks seem to be pretty tactically efficient.


I would disagree that suicide is "minimum amount of effort."

Originally posted by Orwell
Also, maybe our cultural aversion to suicide is one of the reasons why suicide bombing has sometimes been used in attacks against western targets. The London bombers, for instance, probably knew how much additional shock and revulsion their blowing themselves up along with their victims would cause.

Additional shock, yes, revulsion, yes. The effect is to maximize fear. It's terrorism, you see.

Originally posted by Orwell
They want our attention, and suicide tactics helps them get our attention.

And gets our fear. Which is the purpose of terrorism.

Originally posted by Orwell
But we should keep in mind that our aversion to suicide is mostly a cultural thing... Personally, I don't think that a terrorist act is worse because the perp blows himself with his victims.

It's worse on the bomber.

I would also add that while the individual act itself is not "worse", the need to work people into a religious frenzy to where they're willing to kill themselves for the cause is "worse" in that it pretty much guarantees there will always be a core cadre willing to carry on the terror no matter what. The tactic creates fanaticism that prevents resolution of whatever issue there really is.

[geni]

Originally posted by Mycroft
Well, turn it around and ask. "Why do they use suicie terror?"

It's a tactical choice. Why? Think about it, if you wanted to kill a bunch of random civilizns, couldn't you figure out a way to do it where you lived to do it again?

It isn't normaly the cannon foder who decides on tacticts. From the POV of those at the top a suicide bomber is a very cheap smart bomb. Why do you think the japanese tried it?

Consider. In order to place an unmaned bomb you need a timer a lot of planing an nothing unexpected to happen. If you are useing a suicide bomber then you don't need a timer (they can set it off manuly) you can let them sort out the exact detials of timeing and placeing and they can react to unexpected conditions (see the attack on the bus in london as a case of improvisation).

[Orwell]

Originally posted by Mycroft
I would disagree that suicide is "minimum amount of effort."



Additional shock, yes, revulsion, yes. The effect is to maximize fear. It's terrorism, you see.



And gets our fear. Which is the purpose of terrorism.

Well, duh! :)



Originally posted by Mycroft
It's worse on the bomber.

I would also add that while the individual act itself is not "worse", the need to work people into a religious frenzy to where they're willing to kill themselves for the cause is "worse" in that it pretty much guarantees there will always be a core cadre willing to carry on the terror no matter what. The tactic creates fanaticism that prevents resolution of whatever issue there really is. That's precisely what extremists willing to blow themselves up want. They don't want a peaceful resolution, since the grievances and problems they constantly invoke as justifications for their actions are useful tools, they help to recruit and convert. They're extremists!

We should not let the extremists set the agenda.

[epepke]

Originally posted by geni
It isn't normaly the cannon foder who decides on tacticts. From the POV of those at the top a suicide bomber is a very cheap smart bomb. Why do you think the japanese tried it?

See this article by Richard Dawkins: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4257777,00.html

As for the point that suicide bombing is good tactics, which I think Orwell was trying to make at one point, an analysis of the Kamikazi fighters/bombers indicates a higher kill ratio per dead Japanese pilot than conventional fighter/bomber runs would have achieved.

[Orwell]

Originally posted by epepke

As for the point that suicide bombing is good tactics, which I think Orwell was trying to make at one point, an analysis of the Kamikazi fighters/bombers indicates a higher kill ratio per dead Japanese pilot than conventional fighter/bomber runs would have achieved.

You can't compare kamikaze fighter tactics to suicide bombings by single individuals carrying explosives and moving undercover amongst civilians.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by Orwell
You can't compare kamikaze fighter tactics to suicide bombings by single individuals carrying explosives and moving undercover amongst civilians. JREF is famous for the kamikaze vs Islamic suicide bomber comparison. Yet Kamikazes never targeted innocent civilians. Additionally kamikaze attacks ended dead in their tracks as soon as Japan surrendered.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Orwell
You can't compare kamikaze fighter tactics to suicide bombings by single individuals carrying explosives and moving undercover amongst civilians.

Sure you can! You just did. Duh! You compared kamikazes to suicide bombers and concluded that they were different.

Similarly, it should be possible to compare Islamic Fundamentalists with other fundamentalists and conclude the same thing. Funny, though, whenever anybody tries to do this, they are treated to a display of the verbal equivalent of the St. Vitus Dance.

Riddle me this. Apart from the Japanese Kamikazi, the Tamil Tigers, and various Muslims, have there been any other uses of ideology to promote suicide attacks in recent times that have been anywhere near as successful?

Did Pat Robertson ever manage to pull any of this stuff off? How about Jerry Falwell? Jimmy Swaggart? Jim Bakker? Mother Theresa? Idi Amin?

[luchog]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
But if being Islamic causes people to do this, then they would have been going it since the creation of Islam.

The Assassins - Holy Killers of Islam by Edward Burman (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/offer-listing/1852740272/ref=dp_olp_0//002-4099530-5465648?condition=all)

[luchog]

Originally posted by Mycroft
It's just my personal speculation, but I often wonder if the violence in Islam wasn't picked up from the Palestinian-Arabs rather than the other way around.

I guess it's sort of a chicken & egg thing.
No, it's inherent in various sects of the religion. See my reply to AUP for info regarding one of the more extreme sects. Note: the book doesn't simply focus on that sect to the exclusion of all others, but puts it in it's historical context as well; and shows how it was simply a derivation of existing trends, rather than something unique.

[Orwell]

Originally posted by epepke
Sure you can! You just did. Duh! You compared kamikazes to suicide bombers and concluded that they were different.

That's not what I meant and you know it. You said: As for the point that suicide bombing is good tactics, which I think Orwell was trying to make at one point, an analysis of the Kamikazi fighters/bombers indicates a higher kill ratio per dead Japanese pilot than conventional fighter/bomber runs would have achieved. Although ramming explosive laden planes against a ship and blowing yourself up in the midst of people are both suicide attacks, strictly speaking they are different actions demanding different tactics. Therefore, you can't compare the efficiency of kamikaze attacks to the efficiency of "terrorist" suicide bombing attacks.
Originally posted by epepke
Similarly, it should be possible to compare Islamic Fundamentalists with other fundamentalists and conclude the same thing. Funny, though, whenever anybody tries to do this, they are treated to a display of the verbal equivalent of the St. Vitus Dance.

Riddle me this. Apart from the Japanese Kamikazi, the Tamil Tigers, and various Muslims, have there been any other uses of ideology to promote suicide attacks in recent times that have been anywhere near as successful?

Did Pat Robertson ever manage to pull any of this stuff off? How about Jerry Falwell? Jimmy Swaggart? Jim Bakker? Mother Theresa? Idi Amin?
I believe that, under the right political and social conditions, most kinds of extremism (be it political or religious or whatver) can produce terrorism. Since I consider suicide bombing just another terrorist tactic, I don't get too bothered if one type of terrorism or another doesn't produce suicide bombers. But I'm willing to bet that, if you have the right kind of circumstances, even suicide bombers can be produced by most kinds of extremism.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Orwell
That's not what I meat and you know it. You said: Although ramming explosive laden planes against a ship and blowing yourself up in the midst of people are both suicide attacks, strictly speaking they are different actions demanding different tactics. Therefore, you can't compare the efficiency of kamikaze attacks to the efficiency of "terrorist" suicide bombing attacks.

Sure it is what you meant. You even said it yourself: "different tactics."

I believe that, under the right political and social conditions, most kinds of extremism (be it political or religious or whatver) can produce terrorism. Since I consider suicide bombing just another terrorist tactic, I don't get too bothered if one type of terrorism or another doesn't produce suicide bombers. But I'm willing to bet that, if you have the right kind of circumstances, even suicide bombers can be produced by most kinds of extremism.

Similarly, I believe that, given a few million years, chimpanzees could learn to talk like Roddy McDowell and subjugate humanity. I also believe that, given only a few hundred years, Islam could go through a reformation and become as bland as an Oxford Don. At least there are actual, similar precedents to both possibilities. I don't, however, expect to live that long and, as I have no children, there won't be anybody alive to collect on a bet.

I also think that the difference between the indicative and subjunctive moods represents something about reality that is important.

Of course, there is a genuine difference between us, and that is that you don't seem to consider suicide bombing notable in any particular way. That's fair. On the other hand, I have to reiterate: we do have a fact-based study of suicide bombing, which was linked here. Do you have a fact-based study of terrorism in general? Because otherwise, what's there to talk about?

[epepke]

Originally posted by luchog
The Assassins - Holy Killers of Islam by Edward Burman (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/offer-listing/1852740272/ref=dp_olp_0//002-4099530-5465648?condition=all)

Wow, $43 for a used trade paperback?

The Protocols Of the Learned Elders Of Zion is still in print and costs $12.

There's a joke somewhere in there, but I'm not sure what it is.

[Orwell]

Originally posted by epepke
Sure it is what you meant. You even said it yourself: "different tactics." Different tactics but both suicide attacks. Remember, I said "When it comes to terrorism, which often involves doing the maximum amount of damage with the minimum amount of effort, suicide attacks seem to be pretty tactically efficient". I was only considering suicide bombing tactics efficient when used for terrorism. But suicide bombing doesn't necessarily imply terrorism. For instance, not all kamikaze used planes: I read somewhere that during the invasion of Okinawa, the Japanese used soldiers with explosives strapped to their bodies. This is suicide bombing, but it isn't terrorism, since the target was military. The words "suicide bomber" have been used even when the target is military, like when a suicide car bomb destroyed the Marine barracks in Lebanon, in the 80s. If a suicide attack employing a car laden with explosives against a military target is called "suicide bombing", then I think it is legitimate to call kamikaze (which used planes instead of cars against military targets) "suicide bombings" too, even though it's not, technically, terrorism.
Originally posted by epepke
Similarly, I believe that, given a few million years, chimpanzees could learn to talk like Roddy McDowell and subjugate humanity. I also believe that, given only a few hundred years, Islam could go through a reformation and become as bland as an Oxford Don. At least there are actual, similar precedents to both possibilities. I don't, however, expect to live that long and, as I have no children, there won't be anybody alive to collect on a bet.

I also think that the difference between the indicative and subjunctive moods represents something about reality that is important.

Of course, there is a genuine difference between us, and that is that you don't seem to consider suicide bombing notable in any particular way. That's fair. On the other hand, I have to reiterate: we do have a fact-based study of suicide bombing, which was linked here. Do you have a fact-based study of terrorism in general? Because otherwise, what's there to talk about?

I don't agree with is the notion that islamic extremists are somehow profoundly different from other violent extremists because they happen to be muslim. I don't think they are. I believe that a terrorist is a terrorist. Suicide bombing is just another terrorist tactic, and, in spite of what self-righteous people like you (and Skeptic) say, it is clear that the practice of blowing yourself up with your target is not a trait exclusive to muslim terrorism. The fact that there's numerous exceptions to the "islamic terrorism uses suicide bombing" (like the Tamil Tigers) clearly proves that. If you want to truly understand why there are suicide bombers, you have to look at all the groups that have used the tactic, not just the one particular group that happens to be using the tactic today.

You have the Tamil Tigers, who, it seems, up until 2003 (the year Iraq was invaded), were the group who had used suicide bombing the most.
Robert A. Pape, an associate professor of political science at the University of Chicago, calls the group the world's "leading instigator" of suicide attacks. In his recent book "Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism," Pape says that the group accounted for 76 of 315 suicide attacks carried out around the world from 1980 through 2003, compared with 54 for the Islamic Resistance Movement, or Hamas, and 27 for Islamic Jihad.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/16/AR2005071601363_pf.html

And then...
'Dying to Win" draws on a thorough database of all suicide attacks recorded since the contemporary practice was born during the Lebanese civil war in the early 1980s: a total of 315 incidents through 2003, involving 462 suicidal attackers. Of the 384 attackers for whom Pape has data, who committed their deeds in such danger zones as Sri Lanka (where the decidedly non-fundamentalist, quasi-Marxist Tamil Tigers have used suicide attacks since 1987 in their fight for a Tamil homeland), Israel, Chechnya, Iraq, and New York, only 43 percent came from religiously affiliated groups. The balance, 57 percent, came from secular groups. Strikingly, during the Lebanese civil war, he says, some 70 percent of suicide attackers were Christians (though members of secular groups)
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/07/03/why_do_suicide_bombers_do_it/?page=full

[epepke]

Originally posted by Orwell
Different tactics but both suicide attacks. Remember, I said "When it comes to terrorism, which often involves doing the maximum amount of damage with the minimum amount of effort, suicide attacks seem to be pretty tactically efficient". I was only considering suicide bombing tactics efficient when used for terrorism.

That seems to be true. From the articles that you linked to, while suicide bombing were a minority of all terrorist attacks, they accounted for a disproportionately large number of deaths.


I don't agree with is the notion that islamic extremists are somehow profoundly different from other violent extremists because they happen to be muslim. I don't think they are. I believe that a terrorist is a terrorist. Suicide bombing is just another terrorist tactic, and, in spite of what self-righteous people like you (and Skeptic) say, it is clear that the practice of blowing yourself up with your target is not a trait exclusive to muslim terrorism.

Got your goat! Got your goat!

It seems to me that you're operating from an ideological position. I have an ideological position, but it is a different kind from yours; mine is that fact-based studies are a better basis for conclusions than most others. You kindly provided a reference to such a study, and I'm following up on that. If you had not provided the links, then likely I would not even be participating in this thread at all, and you and Skeptic would happily be throwing verbal brickbats at each other; politics as usual.

For me, there are two things, both of which come from the links you gave:

1) Suicide bombings account for a disproportionately high number of deaths from terrorism.

2) Suicide bombers are disproportionately Muslim.

These two, put together, seem to me to indicate a prima facie connection, at the present time, between Islam and effective terrorist tactics. The two hypotheses that have been the most successful so far are 1) that there is something in Islam that facilitates this, and 2) that there is something in non-Islamic belief systems that make cultures associated with them particularly vulnerable. Both hypotheses are worthy of discussion, and both have been discussed here. Note that I brought up a finding from cognitive and behavioral psychology relevant to the latter.

Now, you may have other hypotheses, which may be worthy of discussion as well. There's another hypothesis that I can think of, which I'll wait for someone else to formulate it as sort of a test to see if anyone else is interested in discussing hypotheses.

However, I gather from your "self-righteous" crack that you aren't interested in discussing them but rather in playing politics. That's fine, if that's what you want, and I assure you that I am not insulted; it just gives me more information about where you're coming from.

The fact that there's numerous exceptions to the "islamic terrorism uses suicide bombing" (like the Tamil Tigers) clearly proves that.

To me, the idea that there is a link between Islam and suicide bombing is a priori no different than the idea that there is a link between cigarette-smoking and lung cancer, or for that matter that there is a link between thimerosal and autism. The fact that there are "numerous" cases of non-smokers developing lung cancer does not, in and of itself, clearly prove that there is no link between smoking and cancer. Nor, of course, does the fact that the majority of smokers never develop lung cancer clearly prove it.

In order to test the idea, one has to do some statistics, such as comparing the incidence of lung cancer amongst smokers to that amongst non-smokers. I used the same kind of statistics in my first reply within this thread.

[Orwell]

Sorry about the self righteous crack. I have been getting into so much crap over this particular subject that I tend to assume that most that don't agree with me are in bad faith and just want to "play politics", as you say.

Your answer deserves some attention. I will come back later, when I have the time to think about what you are saying, and discuss it.

[kimiko]

Originally posted by Meadmaker
I can see one huge difference between the Aborigines and the Palestinians.

The Aborigines are a minority in their native land.

The Arabs are a majority. I think this is the most important point. The Aborigines and Native Americans have already lost- they are massively outnumbered, so violence will do nothing but weaken already tiny populations. The fight for them now is to preserve their cultures and languages, get back what land they can through the courts, and fight social problems- alcoholism, poverty, etc.

The American Indian Movement in the 60s and 70s was committed to violence, and actually had the army dispatched against them at Wounded Knee. I remember reading an interview with actor Wes Studi (Magua in Last of the Mohicans), who was there. He said the movement fizzled after that when the activists realized they couldn't win anything that way.

The Palestinians haven't been defeated- they know they can win the demographics war, so they could conceivably get control of the whole area with time. At least they have a chance to eventually achieve absolute equality.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Orwell
Sorry about the self righteous crack. I have been getting into so much crap over this particular subject that I tend to assume that most that don't agree with me are in bad faith and just want to "play politics", as you say.

I accept your apology. I also apologize for using "than" when I should have used "from." I don't usually do this.

I am somewhat disappointed, however, because I thought that I had established enough of a presence on this here forum for people to figure out where I am mostly coming from.

Perhaps it's my new avatar that confused you?

[Orwell]

Originally posted by epepke
I accept your apology. I also apologize for using "than" when I should have used "from." I don't usually do this.

I am somewhat disappointed, however, because I thought that I had established enough of a presence on this here forum for people to figure out where I am mostly coming from.

Perhaps it's my new avatar that confused you?

I have not been on the forum that long, and there's a lot of members I don't "know".