I can't be the only one who feels that inherent in the idea of being a martyr is that your sacrifice is made in the face of adversity to up hold that which you believe in. By that I mean the sacrifice of life is willingly given, and chosen to be given but not for the explicit purpose of inflicting harm unto those who oppress you and yours.
The idea that one willingly becomes a martyr through the act of suicide to me degrades what it means to be a martyr (which on the whole I see as being an admirable dedication to a set of ideas regardless of whether or not I subscribe to said ideals).
Whether this incurs that a captured soldier knows he will be killed for refusing to forfeit information to his captors, and accepts death (not suicide explicitly but relative), or an individual who is killed for preaching their beliefs by an authority which deems them subversive; to me there is a marked difference between this radical belief that suicide can be deemed martyrdom.
In my opinion one can choose to die at the hands of others which as I implied is, in a very technical sense is suicide, and still be a martyr. When that line is crossed and one volunteers their life for the expressed purpose of inflicting damage on an enemy or group of enemies, one ceases to be a martyr and is reduced to a suicide bomber.
By my own definition a suicide bomber is one who through indoctrination, social/political pressure, or lack of options is made to believe this is a justifiable action. At its core, the action shows a demonstrated disregard for all human life not just those who are explicitly your enemy, but their children as well. Even in a world where non-state actors play and increasingly large role in warfare and conflict this is unacceptable.
On November 25 2012 01:42 zalz wrote: Your life is your property, and as such, yours to do with as you please.
Well you can't do everything you please, but I agree with every point. You didn't decide to come into this world, so though suicide might hurt family, they would would be selfish to force you to live through the pain. One instance where suicide sucks is when you bring children into the world and abandon them.
I think what zalz is saying is that, somewhere in the human mind, there is bit of "old programing" that makes humans rationalize it is ok or even good to die under certain circumstances. It might be a vestige of from our hunter/gatherer days or even older animistic instincts, where the males of a tribe/pride would put themselves in danger or sacrifice themselves to keep the females/rest of their tribe/pride safe, while the females would sometimes do the same but when protecting their infants.
I believe this is probably a trait that all social beings share to a certain degree, it is a by product of the social environment where you form strong emotional bonds with others, and it makes it rationally acceptable to risk one's life to protect someone else.
I personally find it disturbing however that such emotions and trough can be manipulated trough the use of religious, nationalistic or ideological means to twist someone into giving up his own life. I can understand the mechanics due to Calihead's thread, it probably is a complicated process where exterior and interior pressures, of social and material issues come together to form the perfect storm inside a person's mind. Sometimes this deadly concoction can lead people to martyrdom.
I still find it very very sad though. But I suppose that, under the right circumstances anyone could probably be put in a position where they might view their own lives as being worth sacrificing for a greater cause.
Personally I view all life as sacred and worth preserving. I don't believe in nationalistic ideals, I believe in us as humans, we all as a collective are all equally precious and unique and worth preserving, we should all be learning how to accept each others differences and embracing what makes each other so alike. The idea of us as humanity should be something that transcends all bonds of color, language, race of nation, something that unites us for a greater good.
All these issues that keep keeping us apart are bad for us as a whole, and while they keep on existing we will always have some unfortunate few who can be manipulated, either knowingly by someone or by circumstances, to commit martyrdom for some misguided cause.
I also view the army as bad, regardless of how it is glorified or romanticized, in the end if you die there is still little consolation for your family and loved ones, they will remember you as a brave man/woman but ultimately they will be sad for having lost you forever, they will regret every happy moment from there on out you couldn't be part of, and all your wonderful future that was unfortunately cut short. And anyone you kill in a war, well while you don't think of it initially, what happens is that the families and loved ones of those you kill also go trough the same process of sadness and grief that your loved ones go trough. These feelings of sadness and suffering can breed anger and hatred and it could lead into a vicious cycle of grief and sorrow (what we have in current day Palestine).
The only sacrifice of one's life I see as being worthy, is that where you directly can save someone else's life, rushing into a burning building to save someone, but subsequently dying of your injuries, pushing someone out of the way of a car, only to be hit by it. To give one's life willingly to save another, with no desire for a reward of the material or spiritual nature, I consider to be the highest and noblest of acts someone can commit.
On November 24 2012 18:26 sickoota wrote: The line between suicide bombing and any other form of warfare is not so sharp. When one signs up for a military one must accept that it is quite possible that they will die for their country. It is a matter of degree of certainty (matryrs know they will die, soldiers know they might die) rather than two wholly different things, so I find it a bit nonsensical to write attempt an ethical treatment of martyrdom as if it were a completely different type of act from any other sort of soldiering.
You yourself acknowledge the quintessential difference. One embraces absolute death, the other seeks to avoid it, but accepts the possibility.
Other than that, there is the fact that militaries are, sadly, a fact of life. Blowing yourself up in a Jewish school doesn't have a damn thing to do with defense of a nation.
So no, signing up for the military and martyrdom are not the same.
Accepting death for your country and enforcing it yourself to harm others are completely different things.
A soldier accepts the possibility and also accepts death when the possibility arises. Hence therefore he is a martyr.
Someone who goes into a street and blows himself up is a suicidal murderer. You can call them what you want but thats all they are.
On November 24 2012 18:26 sickoota wrote: The line between suicide bombing and any other form of warfare is not so sharp. When one signs up for a military one must accept that it is quite possible that they will die for their country. It is a matter of degree of certainty (matryrs know they will die, soldiers know they might die) rather than two wholly different things, so I find it a bit nonsensical to write attempt an ethical treatment of martyrdom as if it were a completely different type of act from any other sort of soldiering.
You yourself acknowledge the quintessential difference. One embraces absolute death, the other seeks to avoid it, but accepts the possibility.
Other than that, there is the fact that militaries are, sadly, a fact of life. Blowing yourself up in a Jewish school doesn't have a damn thing to do with defense of a nation.
So no, signing up for the military and martyrdom are not the same.
Accepting death for your country and enforcing it yourself to harm others are completely different things.
A soldier accepts the possibility and also accepts death when the possibility arises. Hence therefore he is a martyr.
Someone who goes into a street and blows himself up is a suicidal murderer. You can call them what you want but thats all they are.
What he is saying though is that, for someone who lives a harsh life, who grew up without a real sense of purpose and with near zero life expectancies, in a nationalistic and superstitious culture, that encourages one to die for his country/people, could be lead to believe that, becoming a suicide bomber and killing a load of innocent people, is actually an act of good for the greater good of his kin.
Of course we as impartial observers know the truth. War and crime don't bring much good to anyone, but the poor sods that die for this stupid ideal really don't know any better, and that is the sad part.
Interesting read, sadly enough it really doesn't give much of an answer why suicide bombing is an almost exclusively Islamic practice, who are clearly not the only downtrodden population in the world, yet we see no Kurds or Tibetans blowing themselves up.
Somehow Islamic rhetoric seems to play an massive part in suicide bombing, nowhere in history have we ever seen such a massive infrastructure set up around suicide, from preachers (and ofcourse the Qu'ran itself) justifying it, to rich organizations that recruit usually impoverished adolescents for the task, to the sheer amount of rich extremist Islamics that keep the pockets of the recruiters filled, if the data was somewhat more publicly available you could easily do a study on the economics of suicide bombing, this is appearantly a valued commodity, a lot of people get euphoric when it is dispensed, many pay to have someone enact this commodity (and I can't imagine it's cheap) and someone will pay the ultimate price purely to let people enjoy their disturbing high on suffering.
Which leads me into my next point, if Islam did not justify this method of suicide so easily, this would not be a problem, Islamic terrorist groups almost have an obsession with making civilian casualties, if the religious excuse was not there and suicide deemed bad in all circumstances like most religions tend to believe, they would probably act like most other extremist groups, focusing on military and political targets.
Stupidest part of all is how while the religious extremists get their civilian death high, they are giving any country affected a practical carte blanche on murdering anyone in their general vincinity, after every suicide bombing, be it in Israel, the US or Europe you will have countermeasures, ranging from killing a couple dozen insurgents in Gaza and further discriminating the Palistinian populace to straight up invading a country and killing hundreds of thousands of natives and terrorists alike. And nobody will really give a shit, because the only religious group that seems capable of having any kind of sympathy for suicide bombers are the Muslims themselves. And unless you make up most of the worlds religion (which right now Christianity still holds) you are going to have to play nice with the rest of the world at some point.
Or someday, what remains of the rest of the worlds tolerance for a religion that has caused more death and destruction then any before, will run out, and then everyone's fucked.
No idea why I'm reminded of the suicide squad in Life of Brian right now.
On November 24 2012 18:26 sickoota wrote: The line between suicide bombing and any other form of warfare is not so sharp. When one signs up for a military one must accept that it is quite possible that they will die for their country. It is a matter of degree of certainty (matryrs know they will die, soldiers know they might die) rather than two wholly different things, so I find it a bit nonsensical to write attempt an ethical treatment of martyrdom as if it were a completely different type of act from any other sort of soldiering.
You yourself acknowledge the quintessential difference. One embraces absolute death, the other seeks to avoid it, but accepts the possibility.
Other than that, there is the fact that militaries are, sadly, a fact of life. Blowing yourself up in a Jewish school doesn't have a damn thing to do with defense of a nation.
So no, signing up for the military and martyrdom are not the same.
Accepting death for your country and enforcing it yourself to harm others are completely different things.
A soldier accepts the possibility and also accepts death when the possibility arises. Hence therefore he is a martyr.
Someone who goes into a street and blows himself up is a suicidal murderer. You can call them what you want but thats all they are.
What he is saying though is that, for someone who lives a harsh life, who grew up without a real sense of purpose and with near zero life expectancies, in a nationalistic and superstitious culture, that encourages one to die for his country/people, could be lead to believe that, becoming a suicide bomber and killing a load of innocent people, is actually an act of good for the greater good of his kin.
Of course we as impartial observers know the truth. War and crime don't bring much good to anyone, but the poor sods that die for this stupid ideal really don't know any better, and that is the sad part.
Ofcourse they wont know, but that is just as much the fault of the impartial and not so impartial observers who ignore them as it is the extremist who feeds, clothes and shelters them..
On November 24 2012 18:26 sickoota wrote: The line between suicide bombing and any other form of warfare is not so sharp. When one signs up for a military one must accept that it is quite possible that they will die for their country. It is a matter of degree of certainty (matryrs know they will die, soldiers know they might die) rather than two wholly different things, so I find it a bit nonsensical to write attempt an ethical treatment of martyrdom as if it were a completely different type of act from any other sort of soldiering.
You yourself acknowledge the quintessential difference. One embraces absolute death, the other seeks to avoid it, but accepts the possibility.
Other than that, there is the fact that militaries are, sadly, a fact of life. Blowing yourself up in a Jewish school doesn't have a damn thing to do with defense of a nation.
So no, signing up for the military and martyrdom are not the same.
Accepting death for your country and enforcing it yourself to harm others are completely different things.
A soldier accepts the possibility and also accepts death when the possibility arises. Hence therefore he is a martyr.
Someone who goes into a street and blows himself up is a suicidal murderer. You can call them what you want but thats all they are.
What he is saying though is that, for someone who lives a harsh life, who grew up without a real sense of purpose and with near zero life expectancies, in a nationalistic and superstitious culture, that encourages one to die for his country/people, could be lead to believe that, becoming a suicide bomber and killing a load of innocent people, is actually an act of good for the greater good of his kin.
Of course we as impartial observers know the truth. War and crime don't bring much good to anyone, but the poor sods that die for this stupid ideal really don't know any better, and that is the sad part.
Ofcourse they wont know, but that is just as much the fault of the impartial and not so impartial observers who ignore them as it is the extremist who feeds, clothes and shelters them..
it is less food, clothes and shelter, and more ideology and attacking the enemy who is to blame for all your own miseries. They won't think about "killing a load of innocent people", they attack the enemy.
On November 25 2012 04:14 Scootaloo wrote: Interesting read, sadly enough it really doesn't give much of an answer why suicide bombing is an almost exclusively Islamic practice, who are clearly not the only downtrodden population in the world, yet we see no Kurds or Tibetans blowing themselves up.
It's not at all exclusive to muslims though, suicide attacks take varying forms and I've broadened it alluding to different examples, religiously motivated Tibetans and South Vietnamese light themselves on fire in protest, Japanese Kamikaze fighter pilots crash their own planes into American warships carrying explosives, Joseph Conrad's the Secret Agent was written with the back drop of the attempted bombing of the Greenwich Observatory by a french Anarchist as early as 1894, suicide in the military is endemic regardless of what country or culture you are from, be it modern day USA, historical Japan, historical indonesia. I left it open for people to do their own research. Just because a suicide attack doesn't take the form of a bombing doesn't mean its nature is any different, bombs are a very modern invention. You can all probably remember some form of popular media depiction of historical militias or religiously motivated individuals who carry out attacks or tasks knowing that he/she will surely perish for the express purpose of one of the reasons I've listed from your own culture. I can remember a few examples from Chinese history, particularly during the Opium wars.
On November 24 2012 20:10 Shiragaku wrote: Dude...that mother was definitely mentally ill. What she told her sons to do is something that would disturb many hardcore anti-Zionists. In fact, many of them would distance themselves from the mother and do what they do best which is resorting to conspiracy theories.
But as for martyrdom, it certainly proved to be a effective military tactic on occasion during WW II, but as for ethics it is rather fucked. My great uncle was at my age (18) was so brainwashed with nationalism and anti-Americanism he was more than happy to crash a plane into an American vessel. But the war ended and he went crazy, even trying to kill my grandmother with his katana. I have met suicidal people several times and they are unstable, but functioning whereas my great uncle was out of it.
The problem is that you can not simply dismiss these activities as mental illness or outliers, since it is an ongoing phenomenon and has been historically in varying cultures and environments - and you can faithfully recreate these phenomenon in almost any demographic given the right rhetoric and motivation. Look at the other sources I've linked and alluded to. I'm very sorry about this occurring in your personal life.
On November 25 2012 04:14 Scootaloo wrote: Interesting read, sadly enough it really doesn't give much of an answer why suicide bombing is an almost exclusively Islamic practice, who are clearly not the only downtrodden population in the world, yet we see no Kurds or Tibetans blowing themselves up.
It's not at all exclusive to muslims though, suicide attacks take varying forms and I've broadened it alluding to different examples, religiously motivated Tibetans and South Vietnamese light themselves on fire in protest, Japanese Kamikaze fighter pilots crash their own planes into American warships carrying explosives, Joseph Conrad's the Secret Agent was written with the back drop of the attempted bombing of the Greenwich Observatory by a french Anarchist as early as 1894, suicide in the military is endemic regardless of what country or culture you are from, be it modern day USA, historical Japan, historical indonesia. I left it open for people to do their own research. Just because a suicide attack doesn't take the form of a bombing doesn't mean its nature is any different, bombs are a very modern invention.
Lighting yourself on fire to protest opression and brutally murdering civilians with a suicide bombing are VEEEEERY different things, most notable, the former does not murder innocents, and while a monk setting himself on fire is usually a one man operation, the suicide bombing operations involves a ton of people involved to get it done, acquiring a tank of gasoline to set yourself on fire is fairly inexpensive and can even be done on impulse, high explosives with a remote detonator on the other hand are more difficult to come by.
In the military suicide attacks are not unheard of ofcourse, but there they are always versus a military force, not godamn civilians, also, a country or an anarchist is not religious, everyone knows that anarchists are fucking idiots, and a country controlling it's military personal is a simple by product of the sad fact that we need armies, if Islam or any other religion causes people to murder civilians in as large a number as possible, do we really need that religion?
And as I said before in my post, which I'm wondering if you even read, those suicide attacks focus on military and political entities, NOT CIVILIANS.
Suicide is not the same as letting yourself be blown up in a crowded area by an idiot with a trigger because Allah will give you poontang. And if you think comparing yourself to the pre WW2 japanese is a good idea, their culture demanded suicide at practically the drop of a hat, made the Germans look like pussies when it came to experimenting on PoW's and instructed entire families to commit suicide with a single grenade rather then be captured.
I find it interesting you equate it to military suicide, these people are heavily traumatized in the worst possible ways, you think Pakistani teen angst can get even close to this? Islamic fanatics don't suicide bomb because they want to get rid of their life, they want to because in Islam it means you will basically become a Saint, they do it because they hate their enemy and their religion tells them it is just, not because they're traumatized, but for PERSONAL PROFIT.
A suicide bombing is an exclusively islamic weapon, if you want proof look at the infrastructure set up around this (I touch on this in my last post if you didn't read it), a military personnel commiting suicide is just simply that, no gains, just losses.
And to reiterate, being poor and growing up in a shitty country does not give you an excuse to kill civilians, tell me what horrible things the Israeli's have done to the Pakistani to justify hordes of them going to the middle east looking to murder out their entire country? And why don't people from other religious groups growing up in the same situation pull this shit?
Edit: You might wanna wait with posting before finishing what you want to write, look at the wiki page you quote, half the situations given are military personal stopping their ships from being captured by the enemy, sad as this might sounds, a warship, especially in those times, was worth far more then a couple lives, it had the ability to take countless more, blowing yourself up in a situation like this is considered noble by many as it STOPS your allies from taking more casualties.
And 99% of all modern bombings have been carried out by Muslims, just look at that godamn wiki paged you forced me to read but you clearly didn't.
On November 25 2012 01:51 ThomasjServo wrote: I can't be the only one who feels that inherent in the idea of being a martyr is that your sacrifice is made in the face of adversity to up hold that which you believe in. By that I mean the sacrifice of life is willingly given, and chosen to be given but not for the explicit purpose of inflicting harm unto those who oppress you and yours.
The idea that one willingly becomes a martyr through the act of suicide to me degrades what it means to be a martyr (which on the whole I see as being an admirable dedication to a set of ideas regardless of whether or not I subscribe to said ideals).
Whether this incurs that a captured soldier knows he will be killed for refusing to forfeit information to his captors, and accepts death (not suicide explicitly but relative), or an individual who is killed for preaching their beliefs by an authority which deems them subversive; to me there is a marked difference between this radical belief that suicide can be deemed martyrdom.
In my opinion one can choose to die at the hands of others which as I implied is, in a very technical sense is suicide, and still be a martyr. When that line is crossed and one volunteers their life for the expressed purpose of inflicting damage on an enemy or group of enemies, one ceases to be a martyr and is reduced to a suicide bomber.
By my own definition a suicide bomber is one who through indoctrination, social/political pressure, or lack of options is made to believe this is a justifiable action. At its core, the action shows a demonstrated disregard for all human life not just those who are explicitly your enemy, but their children as well. Even in a world where non-state actors play and increasingly large role in warfare and conflict this is unacceptable.
I agree with this post. How can one equate suicide bombers with another circumstance of actual martyrdom? It is a watering down of what is really happening. You are basically not giving in to a severe adversity that is attempting to detach yourself from a deep moral conviction or important cause, and instead choosing to remain as you are or continuing to defend said cause. Thomas posted two very real examples of what I would imagine could be classified as martyrdom, choosing by your own accord to grab that term and use it as an umbrella term for other not only less than noble deeds but purely despicable ones is an abomination in my view. They have no association at all, other than the fact that someone is losing their life. In the case of a martyr it is worthy to note, as opposed to suicide, the individual is not choosing to end their life. The only reason they are losing their life is due to the oppression at hand, and severe circumstances that call them to stand their ground or as Thomas pointed out in order to protect sensitive information that may severely harm others (ie: a population) in the grand scheme of things. Either way I think there is a very clear difference with someone that is choosing to not only take their own life, but take the lives of others that they have absolutely no right to take based on very basic moral principles I hope we can all agree on. These suicide bombers have no business being mentioned in the same sentence as a martyr, I don't see how it even overlaps by definition with anyone else. Whether or not these suicide bombers are viewing their acts as noble by some sort of twisted upbringing or what their true motivations are only God and perhaps they themselves may know. None of us can peer into their hearts and weigh the true motivations behind their actions, and I think most of us would agree that these actions are atrocious in terms of their total disregard for human life and extremely impaired perception of the sanctity of it.
I am sure that although martyrs have occurred throughout the course of human affairs, I think that if they were armed with the option of conserving their own belief system, protecting information, and moving beyond the oppression without giving up their lives these people would choose to continue living. They do not have any motivation to end their lives prematurely, and I would venture to say that most of them don't feel as though they have the authority to take their very own life (as in the case with Christian martyrdom). From a Christian point of view only God is the author of life, and no real Christian will tell you that they have a right to end their own life whenever they please. No martyr would take such a situation lightly, but given no other outs and the only way to conserve a deep viewpoint or the other aforementioned severe circumstances is by being martyred - that is when they would willingly concede their lives. They would prefer to be killed with the integrity of having made a stand for their view/beliefs, than compromise their position for living.
Obviously certain ethical dilemmas based on very intricate circumstances may be brought up, as in the case of protecting sensitive information at the hands of a terrorist enemy. A Christian POV on this matter versus an Agnostic could potentially be quite different. As I have never been held captive with some information, and hopefully never will, I am not 100% sure what the "proper" way to react to such a situation would be ethically, morally, etc... I myself would prayerfully operate under Gods' sovereignty as best as I could and consider the dictates of my conscience based on the importance of keeping this information away from the wrong hands. I am not well versed in a situation of this magnitude by any means, so this is speculative at best. If I was in that extreme of a condition, I would also surely pray for help navigating any kind of issues that came in such an extreme scenario. I would imagine a non-believer (anyone not adhering to God/Biblical standards) would approach it more from a utilitarian point-of-view and depending on their own moral convictions would opt a potentially similar path (or perhaps not). There is no one size fits all solution of course as these situations are very dynamic, and decisions may vary depending on what that information was and how sensitive it was. Either way if the person is giving up their own life in the face of this adversity for the sake of preserving the well being of others, then in my view that person is doing something that for all practical purposes is very admirable and courageous.
I am sure this kind of courage doesn't come lightly to anyone regardless of race, culture, viewpoint, religion, or values. I think if there is anything that most of us can agree on, is that life is a precious asset. I myself view a life as something not only special, but priceless. Nobody can put a number on you or me, we are all unique and have special gifts, talents, resources, and ideas among other things to bring to the table of any situation. A suicide bomber would be undermining this core idea, although I can understand that in their own flawed perception they may genuinely believe that what they're doing is in some sort of great cause. May God have mercy on them, but this is unfortunate beyond the extrapolation of words and on the surface it seems practically impossible for most of us (including myself) to sympathize with the plight of a terrorist act like this. I think in the case of martyrdom many of us can understand that while the circumstances may be a great misfortune in and of themselves for that individual at the moment, I sincerely believe that their selflessness and vigor for holding firm to their values even in the face of this most severe situation is something we could all learn from and many of us can understand has merit.
On November 25 2012 04:14 Scootaloo wrote: Interesting read, sadly enough it really doesn't give much of an answer why suicide bombing is an almost exclusively Islamic practice, who are clearly not the only downtrodden population in the world, yet we see no Kurds or Tibetans blowing themselves up.
It's not at all exclusive to muslims though, suicide attacks take varying forms and I've broadened it alluding to different examples, religiously motivated Tibetans and South Vietnamese light themselves on fire in protest, Japanese Kamikaze fighter pilots crash their own planes into American warships carrying explosives, Joseph Conrad's the Secret Agent was written with the back drop of the attempted bombing of the Greenwich Observatory by a french Anarchist as early as 1894, suicide in the military is endemic regardless of what country or culture you are from, be it modern day USA, historical Japan, historical indonesia. I left it open for people to do their own research. Just because a suicide attack doesn't take the form of a bombing doesn't mean its nature is any different, bombs are a very modern invention.
Lighting yourself on fire to protest opression and brutally murdering civilians with a suicide bombing are VEEEEERY different things, most notable, the former does not murder innocents, and while a monk setting himself on fire is usually a one man operation, the suicide bombing operations involves a ton of people involved to get it done, acquiring a tank of gasoline to set yourself on fire is fairly inexpensive and can even be done on impulse, high explosives with a remote detonator on the other hand are more difficult to come by.
In the military suicide attacks are not unheard of ofcourse, but there they are always versus a military force, not godamn civilians, also, a country or an anarchist is not religious, everyone knows that anarchists are fucking idiots, and a country controlling it's military personal is a simple by product of the sad fact that we need armies, if Islam or any other religion causes people to murder civilians in as large a number as possible, do we really need that religion?
And as I said before in my post, which I'm wondering if you even read, those suicide attacks focus on military and political entities, NOT CIVILIANS.
Suicide is not the same as letting yourself be blown up in a crowded area by an idiot with a trigger because Allah will give you poontang. And if you think comparing yourself to the pre WW2 japanese is a good idea, their culture demanded suicide at practically the drop of a hat, made the Germans look like pussies when it came to experimenting on PoW's and instructed entire families to commit suicide with a single grenade rather then be captured.
I find it interesting you equate it to military suicide, these people are heavily traumatized in the worst possible ways, you think Pakistani teen angst can get even close to this? Islamic fanatics don't suicide bomb because they want to get rid of their life, they want to because in Islam it means you will basically become a Saint, they do it because they hate their enemy and their religion tells them it is just, not because they're traumatized, but for PERSONAL PROFIT.
A suicide bombing is an exclusively islamic weapon, if you want proof look at the infrastructure set up around this (I touch on this in my last post if you didn't read it), a military personnel commiting suicide is just simply that, no gains, just losses.
And to reiterate, being poor and growing up in a shitty country does not give you an excuse to kill civilians, tell me what horrible things the Israeli's have done to the Pakistani to justify hordes of them going to the middle east looking to murder out their entire country? And why don't people from other religious groups growing up in the same situation pull this shit?
I'm not justifying it, if you've read the OP, suicide bombing against civilians yields the effect of terrorizing the population in a manner which is very different from armies fighting each other. It becomes less of a death toll and statistics and instead becomes inherently frightening because you are forced to question your own morality and the humanity of the opposition who do not seem to resemble the same set of human logic systems as you do. I've already said that actions motivated on superstition isn't different in nature regardless of whether you subscribe to an established religious bureaucracy or simply a personality cult, a superstitious belief in nationalism, or a superstitious belief of your own creation. Promises of the after life is just one facet of it.
The entire point of the OP is not to simply dismiss these actions as "idiots" or "angst" or "mentally ill", choosing to kill yourself voluntarily is not an easy decision to make.
On November 24 2012 17:58 zalz wrote: Martyrdom is one of the most wicked things in this world, the glorification of self-destruction, the ultimate abandonment of rational self-interest, superseded by a sick urge to destroy, and be destroyed, for the propagation of an ideology.
It shows the totalitarian nature of these belief/political systems. What do they demand of their subjects? Their property? Their submission? No, they won't even stop at that, they won't stop until you give them your very life, the only existence you will ever have.
The fact that these people sacrifice their own person so willingly is indicative of a deep flaw in the human brain, one so advanced that it can easily be turned against its biological mandate of survival. These people don't just destroy themselves, they do so with a sensation of rapture, as they murder themselves and others, they feel bliss.
The problem comes back to the submission of the individual. To relgion, to the state, to the family, any institution that demands submission of the individual to the greater good, will to some degree foster these things.
What is a young Palestinian to do? His religion praises martyrs. His state deems it the highest form of dedication to the cause. His family whisper into his ear how proud they would be, in a society where familial bonds are almost everything.
Strengthen the self; understand that the individual is more important than these structures that demand blind submission to the point of self-extermination. But in a society that would censor such views, these children remain subjected to this psychological abuse.
It isn't "abandoning all reason" to them, that's your judgment.
But self-sacrifice, one for the many, the greater good. Such revolting notions still permeate even our society. What chance does some 16-year old Palestinian boy have?
As in most societal issues, black and white views are naive. Self-sacrifice might be good or might be bad, based on context. I agree with you on these specific ones, and in general martyrdom. But there are many instances where I have no issue with self-sacrifice. Soldier enlisting to protect people he loves, person sacrificing himself so others may live, ... I see no issue with them, I would even say they can be praiseworthy in many situations, depending on details.
People should think about their own interests, not abandon all reason and scream in ecstasy as they are destroyed for some cause they fancy, or some god they bow to.
They are thinking about their own self-interests. They have decided that what they are going to do is in their best interests. Whether it actually is or not up for debate, but they wouldn't go through with it if they didn't at the very least think it in their best interest.
They don't see themselves as abandoning all reason, that's your judgment. I'm very certain someone isn't going to blow themselves up if they don't think they have a good reason to do so.
Granted it's just a film, I think it does a great job of showing the second side of the story you never really see. Like someone else said, it isn't as easy as black and white. Perspective has a lot to do with whether someone is labeled a terrorist or a freedom fighter.
On November 25 2012 04:14 Scootaloo wrote: Interesting read, sadly enough it really doesn't give much of an answer why suicide bombing is an almost exclusively Islamic practice, who are clearly not the only downtrodden population in the world, yet we see no Kurds or Tibetans blowing themselves up.
It's not at all exclusive to muslims though, suicide attacks take varying forms and I've broadened it alluding to different examples, religiously motivated Tibetans and South Vietnamese light themselves on fire in protest, Japanese Kamikaze fighter pilots crash their own planes into American warships carrying explosives, Joseph Conrad's the Secret Agent was written with the back drop of the attempted bombing of the Greenwich Observatory by a french Anarchist as early as 1894, suicide in the military is endemic regardless of what country or culture you are from, be it modern day USA, historical Japan, historical indonesia. I left it open for people to do their own research. Just because a suicide attack doesn't take the form of a bombing doesn't mean its nature is any different, bombs are a very modern invention.
Lighting yourself on fire to protest opression and brutally murdering civilians with a suicide bombing are VEEEEERY different things, most notable, the former does not murder innocents, and while a monk setting himself on fire is usually a one man operation, the suicide bombing operations involves a ton of people involved to get it done, acquiring a tank of gasoline to set yourself on fire is fairly inexpensive and can even be done on impulse, high explosives with a remote detonator on the other hand are more difficult to come by.
In the military suicide attacks are not unheard of ofcourse, but there they are always versus a military force, not godamn civilians, also, a country or an anarchist is not religious, everyone knows that anarchists are fucking idiots, and a country controlling it's military personal is a simple by product of the sad fact that we need armies, if Islam or any other religion causes people to murder civilians in as large a number as possible, do we really need that religion?
And as I said before in my post, which I'm wondering if you even read, those suicide attacks focus on military and political entities, NOT CIVILIANS.
Suicide is not the same as letting yourself be blown up in a crowded area by an idiot with a trigger because Allah will give you poontang. And if you think comparing yourself to the pre WW2 japanese is a good idea, their culture demanded suicide at practically the drop of a hat, made the Germans look like pussies when it came to experimenting on PoW's and instructed entire families to commit suicide with a single grenade rather then be captured.
I find it interesting you equate it to military suicide, these people are heavily traumatized in the worst possible ways, you think Pakistani teen angst can get even close to this? Islamic fanatics don't suicide bomb because they want to get rid of their life, they want to because in Islam it means you will basically become a Saint, they do it because they hate their enemy and their religion tells them it is just, not because they're traumatized, but for PERSONAL PROFIT.
A suicide bombing is an exclusively islamic weapon, if you want proof look at the infrastructure set up around this (I touch on this in my last post if you didn't read it), a military personnel commiting suicide is just simply that, no gains, just losses.
And to reiterate, being poor and growing up in a shitty country does not give you an excuse to kill civilians, tell me what horrible things the Israeli's have done to the Pakistani to justify hordes of them going to the middle east looking to murder out their entire country? And why don't people from other religious groups growing up in the same situation pull this shit?
I'm not justifying it, if you've read the OP, suicide bombing against civilians yields the effect of terrorizing the population in a manner which is very different from armies fighting each other. It becomes less of a death toll and statistics and instead becomes inherently frightening because you are forced to question your own morality and the humanity of the opposition who do not seem to resemble the same set of human logic systems as you do. I've already said that actions motivated on superstition isn't different in nature regardless of whether you subscribe to an established religious bureaucracy or simply a personality cult, a superstitious belief in nationalism, or a superstitious belief of your own creation. Promises of the after life is just one facet of it.
The entire point of the OP is not to simply dismiss these actions as "idiots" or "angst" or "mentally ill", choosing to kill yourself voluntarily is not an easy decision to make.
I really have no interest in discussing military suicide here as you seem to not understand the difference between them and suicide bombers, in the case of protecting people suicide can easily be justified and even moral, none of these terms apply to suicide bombers though, they know that all suicide bombings do is cause more muslims to get killed in relatiation from their usually far better equiped opponents, why they do it is because they gain from it, their families get payed exorbitant amounts by the recruiters, they get their heads filled with paradise right after the boom and get in there because it's simply the most logical action for their personal profit, 72 chicks, you'll be a saint in heaven and all the people you love you'll see over there anyway, what's not to like?
Also, are you equating Islam to a personality cult or superstitional nationalism? Although I would agree, I was under the impression you had a great respect for the teachings of Islam.
And as far as justification goes, justifying suicide bombing is exactly what you're doing, trying to blame everything on environmental circumstances without acknowledging any form of personal responsibility.
First off, i must admit i have not been able to read the entirety of the OP and the following discussion yet, but i would like to add a point or perspective that i have not seen while skimming through the thread.
I do not believe that the suicide attack is an inherently islamic action. theres many examples throughout history (as has been briefly discussed) of suicide attacks as a form or part of armed struggle. independently of whether it targets a military or civilian target, the motivation is always that giving your life for the cause is an exalted and glorious deed. this may be rooted in religion or culture, but is not exclusive to islam in any way.
i think that the main reason why suicide bombings are so central to islamic terrorism is simply the technological difference between the parties involved in these kind of struggles. the US army or IDF as well as the other "western" armies have a vast advantage on militant islamists. one side has the means to target missiles and projectiles accurately from great distances to combat their targets. the other simply hasnt. i believe that if militant islamists had access to a similar level of military technology as their opponents, suicide attacks and the surrounding glorification would not be heard of. as it is, the suicide attack is the most precise and reliable weapon in their inventory and the use is a purely pragmatic response to the technological imparity. of course, it is necessary to steer the ideology of the "common" people in such a way that suicide bombers will be available ion sufficient number and that society at large will accept sending family members and friends to their deaths and the leaders of the movement conciously steer the public opinion in such a manner.
in conclusion, its not religion and fanaticism, it is the social and economic differences on both sides of the conflict.
On November 25 2012 05:44 Nycaloth wrote: First off, i must admit i have not been able to read the entirety of the OP and the following discussion yet, but i would like to add a point or perspective that i have not seen while skimming through the thread.
I do not believe that the suicide attack is an inherently islamic action. theres many examples throughout history (as has been briefly discussed) of suicide attacks as a form or part of armed struggle. independently of whether it targets a military or civilian target, the motivation is always that giving your life for the cause is an exalted and glorious deed. this may be rooted in religion or culture, but is not exclusive to islam in any way.
i think that the main reason why suicide bombings are so central to islamic terrorism is simply the technological difference between the parties involved in these kind of struggles. the US army or IDF as well as the other "western" armies have a vast advantage on militant islamists. one side has the means to target missiles and projectiles accurately from great distances to combat their targets. the other simply hasnt. i believe that if militant islamists had access to a similar level of military technology as their opponents, suicide attacks and the surrounding glorification would not be heard of. as it is, the suicide attack is the most precise and reliable weapon in their inventory and the use is a purely pragmatic response to the technological imparity. of course, it is necessary to steer the ideology of the "common" people in such a way that suicide bombers will be available ion sufficient number and that society at large will accept sending family members and friends to their deaths and the leaders of the movement conciously steer the public opinion in such a manner.
in conclusion, its not religion and fanaticism, it is the social and economic differences on both sides of the conflict.
The only way in which suicide bombings are effective is if you want to majorly piss off your opponent while not inflicting any significant military casualties, you're better of using your suicide bombers for more conventional combat if you actually want to win. It seems that unlike an actual military suicide operation, this accomplishes nothing but cause some joy in certain Islamic countries and usually disproportionate military reactions from whoever they target.
You say Islam is not connected, yet it is the only religion that actually allows actions like this while still serving god, perhaps is not the reason it first started, but it's definitely the reason why it's continued for this long, historically most suicide attacks where incredibly vital to the survival of the nation, you could even argue that joining the military (especially the further back you go) is close to commiting suicide for your country, you are literally risking death at any time for the good of your nation. Yet as I said before, suicide bombings serve noone, they are closer to a pointless crowd activity like football then actual combat, the only thing you will change is emotions, none which are positive.
EPT
