The ethics of Suicide Martyrdom - the suffering of death on account of adherence to a cause and especially to one's religious faith - extreme suffering; torment.
This is the first in a series examining the ethics of suicide to provoke a discussion regarding one of the most profound decisions a conscious living being could make – suicide. To consciously decide not to exist anymore is an extremely deep and difficult to tackle problem, further mystified with the uncertainties and fears of the human experience immediately prior to and after the moment of death (and hypothesis’ or conjectures of the afterlife – which in itself cannot be disproved as subjective experience and observation of it is impossible).
As with all moral debates where discussion has to be centered around assumptions which are not universally accepted, there is no right or wrong answer. There are only logically coherent systems of thought based on assumptions which are hypothetical imperatives. Thus please refrain from degrading the discussion into ad hominem attacks, draw your arguments from establishing patterns of logic and empirical evidence.
This discussion is particularly pertaining to the suicide attacks (or “Martydom”) conducted, promoted, and perpetuated by Palestinian women (notably, mothers) in the Gaza Strip as a reactionary (and many will argue, incendiary) terrorist attacks against the Israeli population. There has been many notable instances which have gone widely reported by the Western media in the past, and a quick google search will turn up a lot of material on the matter. For the purpose of discussion I’ve selected a few cases.
Mariam Farahat (Umm Nidal – or mother of ‘Nidal’, meaning ‘struggle’ or ‘effort’) – One of Hamas’ political candidates who was elected in the 2006 Palestinian legislative election. Who has openly helped, praised and expressed joy at three of her six son’ suicide attacks against Israel. Notably being filmed advising her 17 year old son Muhammad Farhat’s suicide attack against Civilians in a school Jewish settlement of Atzmona, which killed 5 and wounded 23.
Sana Aida - An official of the Palestinian Ministry of Social Affairs explains that mothers should teach their children to celebrate the death of their brother’s Shahada (Martyrdom) as a wedding. - Explaination: “Shahada” is a generalized term meaning to believe purely without suspicion, which is the name of the Islamic creed. Notably Shahada is being used here homogenously with affirming one’s faith in Islam by making the ultimate sacrifice for one’s beliefs where no suspicion could exist. The notion of the “wedding” comes from the Islamic belief that males who ascend or achieve Paradise will receive 72 virgin maids (which is often debated as a common misnomer and manipulative translation). The root of which comes from the term “Houri” meaning pure companions of equal age who joins those who ascend to paradise in combined ecstasy and awareness of God.
There are innumerous examples of active endorsements not simply from governing bodies or terrorist groups, but from isolated individuals with no previous political affiliation for members of their own family (and also themselves) to commit suicide attacks / bombings on the Israeli civilian and military installations / populations. Anything ranging from facebook pages, to TV programming targeted at children example 1, example 2, to interviews of children who themselves affirm these views.
A lot of the relevant footage is hosted by an organization called Palestinian Media Watch or PMW which is an Israeli NGO which collects and documents incitement and humanitarian concerns in the Palestinian media. Which in itself is also depicted as an organization with a specific political agenda tied to the Israeli government, the partial and slanted nature of this organization to provide a specific narrative is clear. However the collections of video and evidence themselves remain unaltered, is not displayed in a manner which alters its original context and is open for international inspection. The organization and its archives can be found here: http://www.palwatch.org/
Numerous documentaries and articles done by differing parties exist on this specific issue, I will list some here and I will diversify the political slant / agenda of my sources and you can draw your own conclusions.
List of Palestinian Martyrs since the 2000 Intifada, hosted by Palestinian Human rights monitoring group (founded 1996 by prominent Palestinians including members of the Palestinian Legislative Council which is the Legislative arm of the Palestinian authority). 6759 dead from Sept. 29, 2000 to March 21, 2010. http://www.phrmg.org/aqsa/general_list_of_martyers_during_al-qsa_intifada_English.htm
A list of prominent suicide bombing attacks can also be found here (804 fatalies from 1989 to 2008):
So why is this relevant to the discussion of suicide? When these appear to be extreme cases of human behavior which we often discard as outliers of our otherwise civil behavior in our mundane day to day grocery bill lives? Well because it’s an extremely good test case which provides the necessary components to understand almost every aspect of the suicidal drive / motivation. We can think of these extreme situations as impulse responses (from mathematics) where one aspect of a specific phenomenon is exacerbated to such a degree that we can pinpoint the internal mechanics and establish a pattern of logic to understand why people choose to act the way they do.
The angle of superstition. - Palestinians are committing suicide attacks with the belief of attaining Shahada and a desirable afterlife based on a superstition system.
Superstition and the associated exploitation of man’s primal fears of the unknown and insecure, the most notable examples of which include our social standing, our sexuality, our purpose in life, and most significantly the notion of the afterlife have been the greatest force in dividing what appears to be coherent rational behavior with what is insane or incomprehensible. For the purpose of discussion here we are not limiting superstition to only subjects with religious affiliation, but simply any assumption or logic construct that we as individuals or as a collective are forced or willing to accept without understanding.
So for example, a child may be forced into a situation of superstitious belief in the abilities of his/her parents and authority figures for the purpose of survival, or in the mechanisms of scientific constructs that he does not have the tools or knowledge to understand, yet is capable of understanding these accepted concepts and overturning a previous superstition. Superstition is very much a necessary part of modern life as it is simply not possible for any individual human being to understand every aspect and detail of the world and internalize them in a coherent logic structure, as living beings with priorities we are often forced to accept certain inevitabilities based on empirical evidence, in particular to this discussion the inevitability of death and uncertainty of the afterlife.
The notion of the afterlife and promises of an euphoric, untroubled or pure state of being after one affirms in a specific superstitious belief system has been used as a motivating factor of suicide and self-sacrifice since the dawn of human civilization; ranging from Mayan human sacrifice, to the slogans of soldiers and armies of all religious affiliations (including modern personality cults), to specific sects of modern day Christian evangelicalism which calls for the end of the world in their own life time via apocalyptic imagery similar to ones of nuclear detonations.
The fundamental motivation always includes an appeal to divine authority, knowledge and direction of one’s purpose both in life and beyond, as well as a projected value of one’s state of being which is unattainable, unfeasible, or unimaginable in the physical universe given the technology of the times. When it comes down to it, all human beings are fearful of death and the unknown, and we all seek purpose and meaning in our actions, the only difference is the degree of susceptibility and will of the individual. Thus the appeals of superstition are always present in any individual, be it an irrational belief in an established religious bureaucracy, or indeed an irrational belief that the universe is absolutely comprehensible to human beings (which is a very common assumption of naturalists and atheists).
The manipulative usage of government media and propaganda in the Palestinian media cases are undeniable, but what is more fundamentally disturbing is the fact that individuals are capable (empirically evident) of convincing themselves of a specific superstitious doctrine regardless of previous creed, education, or intelligence, to commit suicide for an unfounded and unprovable basis of assumptions. Where one might scorn and laugh off the ideas of an afterlife populated by an arbituary number of virgin partners with a distinctly sexist depiction of gender roles in the beliefs of one person, yet then dedicate their life to the teachings of another promised afterlife populated by manipulative imagery which is the by-product of centuries of bureaucratic changes and evolving ideology, and die for it all the same.
The angle of nationalism and self-glorification - Hamas and the PLO (historically) have called upon Palestinians to commit acts of suicide attacks for their country / land / people, employing government propaganda and nationalistic jingoism.
The nationalism angel flows from the previous argument as it is essentially a superstitious belief in the ability, ethics, morality, or factual correctness of a nation state governing system, be it in specific individual leaders or an ambiguous societal goal which is championed by the nation state system. The nationalism ideology commits a person to commit to the ultimate sacrifice for one’s country, people, or political representation, seemingly for the assumed collective goal of their society which is coherent with the individual’s own interests.
This is by no means exclusive to the imagery or verbal persuasion used by terrorist organizations, it is fundamental in the propaganda and popular culture of almost any given country at any given time. Take your pick of media depicting military conflict or extreme human environments, and you can find many instances where self-sacrifice, suicide, and voluntarily moving towards one’s death is glorified. The contexts of these media may range from movies, games, literature, music, architecture, or even political and religious bodies themselves (cults). Even more striking of which is when said glorifying takes place in the place of entertainment with a purpose to arouse or evoke visceral joy.
This is so deep set in past and modern culture that it is almost assumed verbatim that dying for one’s country is “honourable” or “heroic”, it is as deep set as the definitions of virtue and bravery and the ethics systems which base themselves upon the performance of an individual bases on these parameters. We still across the world glorify and decorate the feats of notable self-sacrifice in our education systems and popular literature, often decorating and recognizing the feats of members who explicitly committed suicide in the name of a “national” goal.
The common argument made against the critics of extreme actions based on nationalism is that an individual should have the ability and choice to live and die for the values that he/she believes in, and that when it comes to defense of one’s own livelihood or the interests of valued family members or societal attachments it is a display of bravery to be fearless and protective of those you care about. Often overlooking two fundamental assumptions, that:
1. The interests of the governing system is synonymous with the interests of the individual, and that 2. The actions of self-sacrifice must / should be glamorized and rewarded without exception.
The reality of the situation is that there are very few instances in history where the national system actually represented the interests of any significant portions of the population outside of the ruling class, let alone the majority. And those actions of self-sacrifice are often misconstrued, ineffective, and unjustifiable when taken out of context. Yet still the ideals of “dying for one’s country” or “dying for one’s people” are still used routinely to justify suicide and purposeful self-destruction.
The angle of depression and social pressure - Palestinians are among the most depressed populations in the world due to ongoing warfare, societal instability, lack of prospects for the future, and lack of identity. (This may not be immediately obvious so I will provide statistical studies from various sources and polls) http://imeu.net/engine2/uploads/depression_press_release.pdf http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/04DB1D2976CA606B8525758B0060480B http://isp.sagepub.com/content/58/3/315.abstract Perhaps the angle that those in the first world can most sympathize with, when an individual is placed in extreme circumstances with fear of the future and pressured by society to perform and live in a specific manner. Individuals often turn to self-harm or suicide as a means of seeking emotional gratification or a solution where real solutions are not seemingly present. The lack of prospects of the future / identity can be found present in any generation in varying parts of the world, and as a social phenomenon is much more relevant than many of us would like to believe.
Some examples which you can readily look up include the youth of Japan / South Korea, who despite being materially satisfied and having a sustainable standard of living, have very high rates of suicide due to social pressure and a lack of cultural or personal identity beyond aspirational media outlets which they cannot obtain. Similar examples exist in the developed western world, to lesser degrees but still relevant, say for example Blackpool in Britain due to degraded commercial culture and a lack of direction or prospects for the younger generation. Another good example is areas of Southern Russia / Siberia where industry has degraded and the youth have no prospects of employment or livelihood.
Accompanying these phenomenons is also the rampant use of narcotics and other illegal substances to obtain said emotional high and as escapism to avoid social pressure, it is apparent from the behaviors of individuals that you can establish a causality relationship which links these environmental traits to rates of suicide, depression, and self-harm both empirically and logically.
The angle of existential value - Hypothesis: The Palestinian youth are finding little in life for themselves to believe or find value in other than the presented courses of action by authority figures, community figures, and family elders; which then contributes to a disregard for self-safety and a susceptibility to suicide in an attempt to create value where other avenues do not exist.
This is a much more difficult to quantify argument as it pertains to an individual’s appreciation of the world and finding value in his/her actions. If a person cannot find appreciation or value in the present, especially if options are denied to him/her by social structures and environmental phenomenon, then it becomes very difficult to motivate him/herself to continue struggling indefinitely with no clear goal or value in his/her actions on one hand, as well as making externally presented options with a given narrative and projected value much more desirable.
As a person living in Palestine (especially in Gaza), employment and education are almost entirely sporadic and undependable, means of leaving the country and seeking life elsewhere is also barred by Israeli controlled borders and lack of tangible or reliable avenues of seeking refugee status or gaining admittance into other countries. Many first adopt the mindset that their present situation is hopeless, and that the only alternative to wallowing in self-despair and inactivity is to commit suicide attacks against Israeli territories.
In this respect suicide is simply a means to an end, not an end to itself, were the Palestinians better armed, trained, or had sufficient political power and grounds to resolve the situation with-out resorting to suicidal attempts to dissuade Israeli influence then they wouldn’t need to. A hopeless mindset can also directly lead to suicidal tendencies as it contributes to depression and lack of attachment to the world and its events.
The angle of terror(ism) - Palestinians and their governing structures have used suicide attacks as a means to terrorize Israeli populations, notably not in destructiveness or potential of harm of the attacks, but in complete abandon of the martyr’s own safety and life to achieve a goal.
“ the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85). - FBI’s definition of terrorism
Suicide or self-harm as a social mechanism to strike fear and terrorize people by infringing on their personal stakes in your well-being or in their perception of morality and livelihood is a very ancient strategy that’s been deployed by numerous cultures from varying back grounds.
- The concept of the “shock” trooper and suicide squads who are intentionally sent into impossible situations to destroy the moral of the enemy (if they fail their preset objective) is such a common military strategy that most established armies have historically had specific segments or divisions dedicated to creating such effects. - People who placed under emotional duress and aggravation where they actively blame one specific party for the faults in their life yet have no ways of actually impeaching on that person’s interests sometimes choose to harm themselves in hope of a negative emotional response (or attention) from that party. - It is much more terrifying (and also alienating) to be facing an enemy who doesn’t resemble your own sensibilities or basic logical assumptions. The actions of suicide bombings are fundamentally much more frightening to domestic populaces not due to its destructive potential, but in the fact that portions of a sheltered domestic populace cannot comprehend or rationalize the need or will of a person to commit suicide for the express purpose of harming them.
The implications of this is that someone’s emotional response (in particularly, hatred or loathing) to a situation can be powerful enough to drive them to forfeit their own life just to send an ambiguous message which often never achieves the goals of the individual – a suicide which ultimately could be completely inconsequential to the outcome of the conflict.
The following sections focus on other issues of concern pertaining to the Israeli / Palestinian conflict which will become relevant if you engage in discussion of this topic.
The causality of hatred - Xenophobia, religious intolerance, sovereignty and land disputes, legality vs. morality. The fact that we cannot ignore is that both parties in the dispute are exhibiting extremist behaviors in regards to xenophobia and religious intolerance of the other party. There have been repeated disputes on grounds of legality and logical appeals in regards to who has a claim to the land, whether or not national sovereignty should override the interests of the people, and whether or not a documented “legal” action legislated by a recognized national government should be taken for granted when other parties view the decisions as fundamentally immoral or infringing and harming others unnecessarily.
Keep in mind that these sources of hatred are so deep rooted and powerful that they are capable of persuading and creating a social phenomenon where suicide attacks become seemingly justified and even popular. So it is very important to integrate your own subjective moral maxims or assumptions with the extreme environments that these people are placed in. Some facts which are indisputable in regards to the Israeli / Palestinian conflict are that:
- Israel is currently illegally settling into the West Bank beyond the agreed upon borders. - Parties representing both countries have justified acts which constitute terrorism under the guise of national security. - The treatment of the Palestinians by the Israel is not up to standards or justifiable by any human rights group. It goes without saying that the military actions taken by both parties is also often unjustifiable and motivated not on strategic importance or sustainable solutions but instead irrational assumptions or hatred and fear. - Even if both states reach a two state solution (which would imply Palestine being recognized as a country as well as Palestinians receiving the right of self-determination), Israel is not a self-sustainable country in its present territories due to many factors: such as lack of access to water besides from the Jordan river, lack of sustainable agricultural / economic development solution, etc. - The concept of the “organic bond” of a people to a land is in stark opposition of enlightenment era Jewish values (or “Haskalah”) from the 18th to late 19th century . The ideals of Zionism has also shifted so far along the political axis that the mainstream Zionist values prior to the inception of Israel are completely different from the mainstream Zionist values of today.
The role of mothers and the status quo of gender roles and discrimination in Palestine The biggest sticking / sensationalist point of the entire affair is the role that mothers are playing in Palestinian society to actively encourage their own sons to participate in suicide attacks. This is so fundamentally infringing on the roles and biological inclinations of a mother that rationalizing it is extremely difficult even given all of the above justifications and motivations for suicide and seemingly irrational action. So I will open this to debate, do you think it is logical for mothers to commit actions like this given the circumstances and assumptions. (e.g. If I make the assumption that God is all powerful, all knowing, etc, then it is logically coherent for me to not question the actions of God since my logic is flawed, though we could try to disprove that assumption itself.)
It is also disturbing that females are expected to play one specific role in society (which is congruous with the teachings and assumptions of Islam, which I will not personally debate here but leave open), where from the vocabulary and emotion expressed by the individuals seems as if the only reason why women are not also participating in suicide attacks is because they are not male and must be subservient to the males who play the dominant role in society. I have mixed feelings about this, on one hand we should all be glad that the level of violence doesn’t escalate in any way, on the other hand this is doing nothing for women’s rights in the middle east as it sets backwards examples of obedience to an environment.
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.
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?
I'd like to clarify that women have participated in suicide attacks. It's definitely less common than men, but a lot of women probably see teaching/praising as sharing in an equal effort to the war with men. I'd also like to clarify that the treatment/status of women in Palestine and in the neighboring regions, (Jordan, Lebanon, etc ), is very different from the rest of the middle east. Women are actresses, models, doctors, engineers, etc in those regions. There's definitely more men in those roles, similar to how it is in the US. So while there is cultural shifts that still need to be made, it's not desperate and is naturally/gradually happening without needing a huge cultural revolution.
On November 24 2012 18:06 LittleAtari wrote: I'd like to clarify that women have participated in suicide attacks. It's definitely less common than men, but a lot of women probably see teaching/praising as sharing in an equal effort to the war with men. I'd also like to clarify that the treatment/status of women in Palestine and in the neighboring regions, (Jordan, Lebanon, etc ), is very different from the rest of the middle east. Women are actresses, models, doctors, engineers, etc in those regions. There's definitely more men in those roles, similar to how it is in the US. So while there is cultural shifts that still need to be made, it's not desperate and is naturally/gradually happening without needing a huge cultural revolution.
Yes I am very much aware, it's in the interview that I linked, they mention the case of the third female suicide bomber from Palestine as early as 2002. It's the tone that the females express which is extremely worrying from multiple perspectives.
Infact here's a music video specifically targetting mothers and their daughters.
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.
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.
So I will open this to debate, do you think it is logical for mothers to commit actions like this given the circumstances and assumptions.
Religion is not logical but if I'll bite the happy meal I guess it doesn't seem that weird that they would send their sons to do gods work and save the world or whatever.
Also suicide is not that exciting as you paint it I think. Some people just don't have any positive prospects on the future or live in pain so suicide doesn't seem that bad, it'll make the pain go away, right? I doubt 99% of people committing suicide really has had any philosophical epiphany where they are convinced that it is the right thing. But I guess even the notion that there might be some kind of afterlife will lubricate the motivation.
I don't believe war is right either, as you've said it is a certain form of martyrdom even if death is not the intention. I wish the world would just unite and try to up the living standards for everyone and spread the wealth around and try to "upgrade" everything. Instead of having some super rich dudes and countries like africa being exploited for resources etc. But I know it's damned complicated as with everything and I'm just another grocery bill chewing swede.
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.
it's an entirely different thing, you couldn't be any more wrong.
In reply to the 'is it logical' question in the opening editorial:
In my opinion, yes, given the presumption of believing that your son will be given an eternal life of happiness if they sacrifice their body in the service of an all powerful supreme being I do think it is logical for a mother to support the martyrdom of her son. Especially if their martyrdom will afford you some material convenience, such as the support of members of your society. Even more so if you son is living intolerable conditions.
Having said that I don't necessarily condone the actions of Palestinian's or anyone else committing acts of violence, whether that be through suicide attacks or otherwise.
Which leads me to my next point, or rather question. Is there any Biblical support for martyrdom? The best I could find is http://www.gotquestions.org/Christian-martyrdom.html Which seems to say it's ok to die for your beliefs, but you shouldn't intentionally try to get yourself killed. So a non-suicidal definition of martyrdom is used.
Non Abrahamic religions such as Hinduism support the suicidal form of martyrdom, e.g. Sati, so perhaps it shouldn't be surprising that Islam does. However I can't find support for suicidal martyrdom either in the Bible or even the Koran.
Thus from a theological viewpoint my conclusion is Palestinian mother's support for suicidal martyrdom is misguided because it's not condoned by Islam.
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.
On November 24 2012 19:54 Rick Deckard wrote: In reply to the 'is it logical' question in the opening editorial:
In my opinion, yes, given the presumption of believing that your son will be given an eternal life of happiness if they sacrifice their body in the service of an all powerful supreme being I do think it is logical for a mother to support the martyrdom of her son. Especially if their martyrdom will afford you some material convenience, such as the support of members of your society. Even more so if you son is living intolerable conditions.
Having said that I don't necessarily condone the actions of Palestinian's or anyone else committing acts of violence, whether that be through suicide attacks or otherwise.
Which leads me to my next point, or rather question. Is there any Biblical support for martyrdom? The best I could find is http://www.gotquestions.org/Christian-martyrdom.html Which seems to say it's ok to die for your beliefs, but you shouldn't intentionally try to get yourself killed. So a non-suicidal definition of martyrdom is used.
Non Abrahamic religions such as Hinduism support the suicidal form of martyrdom, e.g. Sati, so perhaps it shouldn't be surprising that Islam does. However I can't find support for suicidal martyrdom either in the Bible or even the Koran.
Thus from a theological viewpoint my conclusion is Palestinian mother's support for suicidal martyrdom is misguided because it's not condoned by Islam.
You can try to argue that blowing yourself up in a suicide attack is not a correct form of martyrdom (you would be wrong).
What you can't do is try to pretend that martyrdom is an inherent part of Islam, because it so very obviously is. Dying in defense of the faith is one of the highest callings that a muslim can answer to.
People need to stop trying to re-write these books in their head because they want them to be something other than what they are.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Now expand the scope in which you view the world from a national one, to an international one.
Soldiers sign up for the army to defend the people they love, or their nation, or their god, whatever the reason, they sign up for the army.
From what does an army defend said people, nation, or god? Other armies, other fanatics.
The entire reason that one signs up to defend his nation from harm, is because the other nation managed to find someone else to sign up for the other team.
The US is currently in an active battle with the Taliban. Can there be any group to whom martyrdom is more sacred? Whenever one of their members blows himself up, they sing his praise.
If you look at the world from a larger perspective, one that covers the entire globe, you see that the problem really is that urge to self-sacrifice oneself for others, or political ideals. This deep urge to kill oneself, or place oneself in a situation that is likely to result in self-destruction, is responsible for a lot of grief.
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.
Now, you argue that sacrificing yourself so that others may live is a good one, something we should admire. I disagree, because all of this is far too abstract.
These people who commit suicide bombings are also under the impression that they are sacrificing themselves so that others may live, or live better. If Israel is destroyed, they reason, how many Palestinians would that save? How many would be happy? Then surely, murdering these school children is the right thing to do, is it not?
I would never dare call a firefighter that saves someone from a burning house anything less than a hero, but those clear-cut examples are as relevant to reality as the ticking-timebomb scenario is to the morality of torture.
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.
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.
Now expand the scope in which you view the world from a national one, to an international one.
Soldiers sign up for the army to defend the people they love, or their nation, or their god, whatever the reason, they sign up for the army.
From what does an army defend said people, nation, or god? Other armies, other fanatics.
The entire reason that one signs up to defend his nation from harm, is because the other nation managed to find someone else to sign up for the other team.
The US is currently in an active battle with the Taliban. Can there be any group to whom martyrdom is more sacred? Whenever one of their members blows himself up, they sing his praise.
If you look at the world from a larger perspective, one that covers the entire globe, you see that the problem really is that urge to self-sacrifice oneself for others, or political ideals. This deep urge to kill oneself, or place oneself in a situation that is likely to result in self-destruction, is responsible for a lot of grief.
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.
Now, you argue that sacrificing yourself so that others may live is a good one, something we should admire. I disagree, because all of this is far too abstract.
These people who commit suicide bombings are also under the impression that they are sacrificing themselves so that others may live, or live better. If Israel is destroyed, they reason, how many Palestinians would that save? How many would be happy? Then surely, murdering these school children is the right thing to do, is it not?
I would never dare call a firefighter that saves someone from a burning house anything less than a hero, but those clear-cut examples are as relevant to reality as the ticking-timebomb scenario is to the morality of torture.
Well considering that I said exactly what you just said, I see no reason to disagree. Notice that I qualified it that it might be praiseworthy based on circumstances. Like your firefighter hero.
In cases of when it is ok, I was using objective reality as a measure, not subjective one of the self-sacrificing person. If the person saves others by killing even more people, that does not satisfy my criteria. Or when he "saves" them from hell by killing them that also does not satisfy my criteria.
As for the enlisting soldier, you are right, I was too vague. Of course I meant a just defensive war. In other cases it gets more circumstance dependent.
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.
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.
Now expand the scope in which you view the world from a national one, to an international one.
Soldiers sign up for the army to defend the people they love, or their nation, or their god, whatever the reason, they sign up for the army.
From what does an army defend said people, nation, or god? Other armies, other fanatics.
The entire reason that one signs up to defend his nation from harm, is because the other nation managed to find someone else to sign up for the other team.
The US is currently in an active battle with the Taliban. Can there be any group to whom martyrdom is more sacred? Whenever one of their members blows himself up, they sing his praise.
If you look at the world from a larger perspective, one that covers the entire globe, you see that the problem really is that urge to self-sacrifice oneself for others, or political ideals. This deep urge to kill oneself, or place oneself in a situation that is likely to result in self-destruction, is responsible for a lot of grief.
That's an interesting view, but I'm not sure the reasons for every army are fundamentally about self-sacrifice. I think that at best while the reasons for one army might be reasonable self-sacrifice (self-defense), the other you can describe as a lust for power that people are willing to risk death for.
Like the people fighting for their freedom in Syria, what they're doing is obviously incredibly dangerous. They're going up against a pretty powerful military that bombs them with near impunity, but their reasons are rational, because they would rather risk death than live under a dictatorship with the quality of life that Assad gives them. So that's an okay form of self-sacrifice.
Now you argue that the problem is in the greater picture, those other self-sacrificers who attack those people.
But for Assad's army, I don't think there is really any sense of martyrdom in the soldiers who still work for him, although I know there are religious ties from a certain sect involved. Its mostly that they just want to continue holding power (and all of the associated good things they get with that) over others. At least before the revolution or near the start, being a soldier would probably give you a fairly good standard of life, that is worth the small risks of being a soldier.
I'm pretty sure there are many cases in the US where people would rather join the army and get free training, schooling, healthcare and food even if there is a chance they will have to fight. Its not really about martyrdom, they just want a better quality of life.
So ultimately I feel you have to argue that the smaller risk of death (in certain cases) for wanting power is like martyrdom and just as deeply irrational...but historically speaking I'm not sure that's so clear. Maybe getting a gang together to take over the local population would actually do the most to improve your quality of life? If you knew they couldn't defend themselves, then it might be reasonable.
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.
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.
Now expand the scope in which you view the world from a national one, to an international one.
Soldiers sign up for the army to defend the people they love, or their nation, or their god, whatever the reason, they sign up for the army.
From what does an army defend said people, nation, or god? Other armies, other fanatics.
The entire reason that one signs up to defend his nation from harm, is because the other nation managed to find someone else to sign up for the other team.
The US is currently in an active battle with the Taliban. Can there be any group to whom martyrdom is more sacred? Whenever one of their members blows himself up, they sing his praise.
If you look at the world from a larger perspective, one that covers the entire globe, you see that the problem really is that urge to self-sacrifice oneself for others, or political ideals. This deep urge to kill oneself, or place oneself in a situation that is likely to result in self-destruction, is responsible for a lot of grief.
That's an interesting view, but I'm not sure the reasons for every army are fundamentally about self-sacrifice. I think that at best while the reasons for one army might be reasonable self-sacrifice (self-defense), the other you can describe as a lust for power that people are willing to risk death for.
Like the people fighting for their freedom in Syria, what they're doing is obviously incredibly dangerous. They're going up against a pretty powerful military that bombs them with near impunity, but their reasons are rational, because they would rather risk death than live under a dictatorship with the quality of life that Assad gives them. So that's an okay form of self-sacrifice.
Now you argue that the problem is in the greater picture, those other self-sacrificers who attack those people.
But for Assad's army, I don't think there is really any sense of martyrdom in the soldiers who still work for him, although I know there are religious ties from a certain sect involved. Its mostly that they just want to continue holding power (and all of the associated good things they get with that) over others. At least before the revolution or near the start, being a soldier would probably give you a fairly good standard of life, that is worth the small risks of being a soldier.
I'm pretty sure there are many cases in the US where people would rather join the army and get free training, schooling, healthcare and food even if there is a chance they will have to fight. Its not really about martyrdom, they just want a better quality of life.
So ultimately I feel you have to argue that the smaller risk of death (in certain cases) for wanting power is like martyrdom and just as deeply irrational...but historically speaking I'm not sure that's so clear. Maybe getting a gang together to take over the local population would actually do the most to improve your quality of life? If you knew they couldn't defend themselves, then it might be reasonable.
It is true that the entire world does not operate on a single princple.
The ideals of self-sacrifice, and martyrdom, are in nearly all their manifestations, contributing to a worse world. They sell evil acts as good, and can make unimaginable horror, like murdering children at a school, something to be praised.
But these ideals, glorified perversions as they are, are not responsible for all the evil in the world. People are complex, and just as you show in your examples, not all soldiers are motivated by notions of martyrdom, some are simply in it for the monetary benefits, others, in third world nations, might enjoy the obsene power it grants them over their fellow citizens.
As such, joining the military is not automatically a sign of a willingness to be a martyr for a cause, or a nation. It might very well be a practical choice.
But the point remains that the ideals of martyrdom, nearly always, push people towards destructive ends. Where these beliefs show their head, they leave misery and sorrow in their wake, but you are correct in that they are not the sole cause of all problems in the world.
I can't claim to know a solution to all the world's problems, I can only point out one of the many termites in the foundation.
In closing though, I do find martyrdom to be more insidious than most things, mostly because many people perceive it as a positive, and don't strive to see it dissapear.
When those who believe in god forget that it was god who chose to put them on the earth, it tends to be that they feel as though they have the right to take themselves off of it in his name. Suicide is something that cannot be justified by religion, and from an atheistic standpoint, in general, unless one's life is so horrendous that it cannot be remedied I am not a big proponent of suicide. Suicide and martyrdom are absolute answers to temporary problems. The sum total is that they never solve anything, ever. One killing himself, at this own hands means that that person has given up on fixing what has gone wrong. There are reasons to kill oneself, I'm not going to say that all suicides are unjustified, but there is never a time I would say, "yeah suicide is your only option here bro." In my experience (including my own time being suicidal, very short period though) suicide is the answer of someone who is not looking to fix what is broken, but to escape from it and just cut their own losses.
On November 25 2012 01:30 docvoc wrote: When those who believe in god forget that it was god who chose to put them on the earth, it tends to be that they feel as though they have the right to take themselves off of it in his name. Suicide is something that cannot be justified by religion, and from an atheistic standpoint, in general, unless one's life is so horrendous that it cannot be remedied I am not a big proponent of suicide. Suicide and martyrdom are absolute answers to temporary problems. The sum total is that they never solve anything, ever. One killing himself, at this own hands means that that person has given up on fixing what has gone wrong. There are reasons to kill oneself, I'm not going to say that all suicides are unjustified, but there is never a time I would say, "yeah suicide is your only option here bro." In my experience (including my own time being suicidal, very short period though) suicide is the answer of someone who is not looking to fix what is broken, but to escape from it and just cut their own losses.
Suicide itself isn't inherently wrong, nor impossible to justify through religious or secular means. Suicide's negative reputation is entirely contemporary. The easiest example is the samurai, who would commit suicide, not just to maintain their honour, but to enhance it.
One's life is his own property. To say that people shouldn't be allowed to commit suicide is to suggest that a person does not own his or her own life. Who then owns it? God? Society? Your family?
The only thing darker than suicide is the idea that you aren't even entitled to do with your own life as you wish. What then? Are we all born into servitude of some form? Don't want to live? Though, your family demands it, and you must adhere to their wishes and the designs they have on your life.
Honestly, it's repugnant.
The only problem with suicide is that it is often indicative of a deeply disturbed mind. I would argue that all people are entitled to commit suicide, but that all of the people that want to do so, should allow themselves to be examined. If a depression pushes you towards suicide, it is hardly your own choice, and that is what is crucial, one's own choice.
People shouldn't be forced to exist against their own will. A rare few amongst the 7 billion will be born with the sad fate that their are biologically unintrested in existing. Is that not cruel enough? Why extent their torment?
You can't do that, God doesn't want it! You can't do that, society doesn't want it! You can't do that, your family doesn't want it!
Your life is your property, and as such, yours to do with as you please.
All of that said, martyrdom and suicide are not the same thing, and the ethics of one do not apply to the other.
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.
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.
Killing yourself is not in your self-interest, unless your every existence is torture and a non-state of being is better.
They praise these suicide bombers for their sacrifice to religion, nation, and people. They distinctly invoke the dedication of others, the submission of the self for the benefit of others.
It isn't even about whether they think it's in their own interests. A gambling addict may also think that he's making money, but that doesn't make it an accurate description of reality, regardless of how much one convinces himself.
So no, the point still stands. You only expressed your belief that these suicide bombers are delusional and/or lacking in basic English. I'll grant you both, but that doesn't change the fact that they need to strive for actual self-interest, in the literal meaning of the word.
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.
Killing yourself is not in your self-interest, unless your every existence is torture and a non-state of being is better.
They praise these suicide bombers for their sacrifice to religion, nation, and people. They distinctly invoke the dedication of others, the submission of the self for the benefit of others.
It isn't even about whether they think it's in their own interests. A gambling addict may also think that he's making money, but that doesn't make it an accurate description of reality, regardless of how much one convinces himself.
So no, the point still stands. You only expressed your belief that these suicide bombers are delusional and/or lacking in basic English. I'll grant you both, but that doesn't change the fact that they need to strive for actual self-interest, in the literal meaning of the word.
If you've been told your entire life that commiting suicide in this fashion IS actually in their self interest, through the martyr worship, religious indoctrination etcetera, can't you see that it's actually possible they do believe it's in their self interest?
Ofcourse there's always a suicide bomber with a story of having a family member killed by Israeli's or other (semi)western forces but this does not go for most of the suicide bombers, hell, most of them don't even come from countries where those are militarily active, poverty can be a incentive ofcourse, but there's a hell of a lot more that has to happen to get suicide bombing to be an acceptable form of religious combat.
You don't just become a suicide worker, usually you're recruited in which case you are dirt poor, and in the rare case where you're actually looking to become one out of personal incentive you're still going to have to get into contact with the same people because they have experience and access to the necessary equipment.
I find it very difficult to believe these suicide bomber do not realize the most basic consequences of their actions, even the poor have some access to news, killing 20 civilians killed in Tel Aviv will make the Israeli's murder only 100 Palistianians as retaliation if you're lucky. The only real incentives you could have for suicide bombing are practical, i.e. their retarded concept of heaven and/or fame, giving your family the usually substantial sum of money from the recruiters, as even a child can deduce that killing 20 enemies if that costs you 101 lives, is not worth it (and this is all going by the Israeli-Palestine conflict, if you take for instance the 911/invasion of Afganistan as example, the numbers are far more lopsided). Ofcourse there's the cause worth dieing for logic, which is cute but pointless if you believe in something 1400 years out of date, and the reason I alluded to the Palestinian suicide squad in Monty Python's Life of Brian earlier.
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.
Killing yourself is not in your self-interest, unless your every existence is torture and a non-state of being is better.
They praise these suicide bombers for their sacrifice to religion, nation, and people. They distinctly invoke the dedication of others, the submission of the self for the benefit of others.
It isn't even about whether they think it's in their own interests. A gambling addict may also think that he's making money, but that doesn't make it an accurate description of reality, regardless of how much one convinces himself.
So no, the point still stands. You only expressed your belief that these suicide bombers are delusional and/or lacking in basic English. I'll grant you both, but that doesn't change the fact that they need to strive for actual self-interest, in the literal meaning of the word.
Reducing martyrdom to "killing yourself" is absurd. You yourself noted a couple pages ago that suicide and martyrdom are not the same and that you can't apply the ethics of the one to the ethics of the other. It doesn't even necessarily need to be the case that your every existence is torture to warrant suicide that isn't "unethical", but that's a different debate.
There is nothing inherently wrong with valuing the good of others over the self just as there is nothing inherently wrong with valuing the good of the self over the good of others. The point is, if one does choose to value the good of others over the good of the self and they then act for the good of said others, then one is in fact acting in their self-interest for pursuing what they value.
Making money is quantifiable and so you can falsify a gambler who thinks they are making money but actually isn't. Value and meaning are not quantifiable. If someone values a cause as meaningful, even if they know it will lead to their death, who are you to say that their values are false or inferior to yours?
I'm not even saying that they are necessarily delusional. You seem to mistakenly consider your judgment of value absolute, which renders any other conception of value false or inferior. What you value is not what everyone values. It follows that what you consider to be in your highest self-interest (which appears to be survival) isn't necessarily going to always be as important to everyone else.
On November 25 2012 07:05 Scootaloo wrote: If you've been told your entire life that commiting suicide in this fashion IS actually in their self interest, through the martyr worship, religious indoctrination etcetera, can't you see that it's actually possible they do believe it's in their self interest?
I already acknowledged that they can be under the mistaken assumption that it is. That doesn't change what the word actually means, simply that the level of delusion runs very deep, and the psychological damage inflicted on these people is extensive.
It doesn't, in the slightest, change my position.
What you're doing now is the equivalent of saying democracy is bad because North-Korea calls itself democratic.
Reducing martyrdom to "killing yourself" is absurd. You yourself noted a couple pages ago that suicide and martyrdom are not the same and that you can't apply the ethics of the one to the ethics of the other. It doesn't even necessarily need to be the case that your every existence is torture to warrant suicide that isn't "unethical", but that's a different debate.
I didn't reduce martyrdom to "killing yourself", I very intentionally used those words. Since we were speaking about the death of self in relation self-interest, I made a more generice reference "killing yourself" which applies to both martyrdom and suicide.
Now, I'm sick and tired of walking on eggshells to try and keep you from crying about semantics, only to have you (intentionally?) run headfirst into that wall, regardless of my attempts.
There is nothing inherently wrong with valuing the good of others over the self just as there is nothing inherently wrong with valuing the good of the self over the good of others. The point is, if one does choose to value the good of others over the good of the self and they then act for the good of said others, then one is in fact acting in their self-interest for pursuing what they value.
There is. That's my whole point, which is what I went into in my earlier posts, and I won't repeat the exact same thing again.
Making money is quantifiable and so you can falsify a gambler who thinks they are making money but actually isn't. Value and meaning are not quantifiable. If someone values a cause as meaningful, even if they know it will lead to their death, who are you to say that their values are false or inferior to yours?
Who am I? I am me. By what right can't I pass judgement on the values and beliefs of others? I am an individual, with the capacity to reason, judge, and pass judgement. The status quo is me casting judgement.
This carebear approach where we should all at some level respect another person's belief, simply because they believe, is ridiculous. Some ideas are bad, some ideas are good, and I won't be silent on the bad one's because it's the polite thing to do.
It is also one of those common dishonest postions, that people express, but don't adhere to themselves. Were I some west-bureau-baptist-church-crazy, you wouldn't waste a second of understanding on me, or call for civility on all sides.
Values should clash, non-violently, so that the bad ideas can be rooted out.
I'm not even saying that they are necessarily delusional. You seem to mistakenly consider your judgment of value absolute, which renders any other conception of value false or inferior. What you value is not what everyone values. It follows that what you consider to be in your highest self-interest (which appears to be survival) isn't necessarily going to always be as important to everyone else.
No, it simply appears that you don't understand what self-interest means, nor grasp the finality of death.
People that start these semantic debates, and inevitably begin to argue about wether blue really means blue, are only one step lower on the ladder of people that ruin debates than tinfoil crazies. Sadly, TL has no short supply of either.
On November 25 2012 07:05 Scootaloo wrote: If you've been told your entire life that commiting suicide in this fashion IS actually in their self interest, through the martyr worship, religious indoctrination etcetera, can't you see that it's actually possible they do believe it's in their self interest?
I already acknowledged that they can be under the mistaken assumption that it is. That doesn't change what the word actually means, simply that the level of delusion runs very deep, and the psychological damage inflicted on these people is extensive.
It doesn't, in the slightest, change my position.
What you're doing now is the equivalent of saying democracy is bad because North-Korea calls itself democratic.
I think you misunderstand my point, they should definitely have the right to kill themselves, for whatever ridiculous notion they might believe in, from a purely logical viewpoint we should stop them, but humanity seems to not have progressed far enough yet as to officially classify religion as a mental illness, it's about knowingly trying to slaughter innocent civilians, the problem is so ingrained in Muslim society and teachings however that trying to solve the problem at anything but the root is pointless, and the root here is Islam, not poverty, poverty might lead to several forms of violence, but this feature is almost exclusive to muslims, maybe once in a blue moon a fanatic of any other denomination, for some reason there is not a significant amount of anyone but Muslims that will set up entire networks to keep the statistically negligible casualties made by suicide bombings going.
This is not some silly Manson-esque cult going for the mass suicide option before the cops break down the door, this is an entire religion that believes in the teachings of a book that justifies these actions as glorious and just.
We're lucky most Muslims can't actually read the ancient dialect of Arabic the Qu'ran written in and translations are blasphemous, if you actually believed all the commands in that book where the absolute truth, you'd be joining the Taliban as well.
On November 25 2012 12:44 Cillas wrote: ops article looks like hes claiming that suicide only comes from palestinian people, without discussing any historical material.
What about ireland, north spain, (japan during ww2) etc. This behaviour doesnt creates itself by just religion, it always comes out of political tension and maybe amplified by political/religious leaders.
thread should be closed, as the start is very wrong and biased
What? Did you read it? Look at the Subheadings - Superstition - Nationalism and Self Glorification - Depression and social pressure - Lack of existential value - Terror
These are all reasons listed which people commit suicide or suicidal actions for, these aren't exclusive to Palestine, I even made listings of specific examples in some cases.
I even explained why I'm using the Palestine example, it's because almost all of the motivating forces for this specific format of suicide and suicidal tendencies in general are present with in the Palestinian-Israeli environment. The point of the OP is not just to expose a specific phenomenon, but attempting to compare examples to establish a system of logic.
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.
This is a fitting description I think, although I do not attach a moral connotation on the word "wicked".
On November 24 2012 17:58 zalz wrote: 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.
Maybe if you assume that religious belief is really at the root of it. It seems to me that existential anger or lack of existential value as you say it is the main cause. Religion etc... are just here to facilitate the act.
How different really are traditional terrorist actions (Russian nihilists, left wing German, Italian or French terrorists of the 60-70s, all the politically motivated terrorist actions around the world) and martyrdom. Maybe it just comes down to how desperate you are, how strong is the entity you want to see destroyed (whether an actual government or a societal system), and how much do you have your back against the wall.
Self destruction seems quite the antithesis to submission. It is the ultimate individual act. Submission would be to accept the "oppressor" (whatever it is, or however imaginary it is) rule. Surely numerous suicides or even mass suicides occured as native indians cultures were being destroyed howard zinn excerpt. Were they more submissive than the ones falling into alcohol and depression?
On November 24 2012 17:58 zalz wrote: 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.
Easy to say while living in a peaceful democracy.
In any case, to answer directly the op, I doubt it has anything to do with logic. Humans actions generally don't, we are lacking too much information and have to take shortcuts. A computer would just bug and crash.
On November 25 2012 15:39 harlock78 wrote: Maybe if you assume that religious belief is really at the root of it. It seems to me that existential anger or lack of existential value as you say it is the main cause. Religion etc... are just here to facilitate the act.
Religion is a part of the problem. Saying that it just "facilitates" it, is just twisting words. It's not the sole problem, but it is a large portion of the problem. But I've never said that religion is the sole cause of it.
How different really are traditional terrorist actions (Russian nihilists, left wing German, Italian or French terrorists of the 60-70s, all the politically motivated terrorist actions around the world) and martyrdom. Maybe it just comes down to how desperate you are, how strong is the entity you want to see destroyed (whether an actual government or a societal system), and how much do you have your back against the wall.
Self destruction seems quite the antithesis to submission. It is the ultimate individual act. Submission would be to accept the "oppressor" (whatever it is, or however imaginary it is) rule. Surely numerous suicides or even mass suicides occured as native indians cultures were being destroyed howard zinn excerpt. Were they more submissive than the ones falling into alcohol and depression?
It is the ultimate act of submission, because you give up literally everything that you have and are. You readily admit that there is nothing that, for example the government, cannot have, cannot take, and cannot demand, and that there is nothing that you will not give to them.
Easy to say while living in a peaceful democracy.
How is that "easy" to say? I quite clearly point out in that quote that what is the right thing, won't also be the easy thing for many of these people, and point out how difficult it is for them to even learn about the right thing whilst living in such a totalitarian regime.
If you take a gun and shoot yourself to the head - just so that you know - you will not die immediately. It might not take long for you to die, but it will take a few minutes of complete pain.
If you use an acid which you think is a "fast death", believe me, you will suffer extreme pain for long parts. Eventually you might die, but in a painful manner.
If you jump off a building --> same thing.
Apparently people here are considering suicide, otherwise this kind of nonsense topic wouldn't even exist. Looking at these kinds of topics just shows me how damn faithless this God-less generation has become but it's all your own fault. A happy person will not even think the thought of suicide - ever. Just know that it's not going to be painless even with the methods you think are "quick".
And you're not going to go down like a "martyr", you're going down like an egoist who hurt his mother, his father, his friends and his surrounding, plus you hurt those people who had to watch you jump in front of the train (again, not an immediate death). And you hurt those social workers who have to clean up the mess you left. A martyr is like von Stauffenberg who sacrificed his life just to try help other people. You could sort of say that J.F. Kennedy died as a martyr. A suicider - dies in disgrace and as an egoist.
On November 25 2012 18:10 Protoss-Bah wrote: If you take a gun and shoot yourself to the head - just so that you know - you will not die immediately. It might not take long for you to die, but it will take a few minutes of complete pain.
If you use an acid which you think is a "fast death", believe me, you will suffer extreme pain for long parts. Eventually you might die, but in a painful manner.
If you jump off a building --> same thing.
Apparently people here are considering suicide, otherwise this kind of nonsense topic wouldn't even exist. Looking at these kinds of topics just shows me how damn faithless this God-less generation has become but it's all your own fault. A happy person will not even think the thought of suicide - ever. Just know that it's not going to be painless even with the methods you think are "quick".
And you're not going to go down like a "martyr", you're going down like an egoist who hurt his mother, his father, his friends and his surrounding, plus you hurt those people who had to watch you jump in front of the train (again, not an immediate death). And you hurt those social workers who have to clean up the mess you left. A martyr is like von Stauffenberg who sacrificed his life just to try help other people. You could sort of say that J.F. Kennedy died as a martyr. A suicider - dies in disgrace and as an egoist.
Why do you seem to get turned on at the thought of other people slowly dying? Don't you think that is a bit more perverse than any thoughts of suicide?
"Complete pain" "suffer extreme pain for long parts" "in a painful manner" "not going to be painless" "not an immediate death"
You seem deeply disturbed. Far more than any "faithless" generation that I know of.
"Suicide" and "suicide attack" are two different things. One of them is really despiccable and used by terrorists, but the other doesnt concern anyone but the person himself and should be acceptable since you should have the right to decide about your own life.
With the palestinians I can never understand the logic behind suicide attacks, because they serve no purpose. They wont deal enough damage to drive the Isreali out, they wont get you any sympathy from impartial bystanders, so what is the point? Instead of being the violent party they should go and watch the movie Ghandi. There is a scene where the peaceful Indians are trying to "go somewhere" and they are then beaten up by a military unit. This makes it really clear who the "wrong party" is and who needs our sympathy.
Another example of a "good use" of using your own death is James Clavell's Shogun, where the "heroine" chooses to suicide in protest over an attack and to protect her lover.
Suiciding while killing other people is just the same as murder and not a noble deed in some cause.
On November 25 2012 18:33 Rabiator wrote: "Suicide" and "suicide attack" are two different things. One of them is really despiccable and used by terrorists, but the other doesnt concern anyone but the person himself and should be acceptable since you should have the right to decide about your own life.
With the palestinians I can never understand the logic behind suicide attacks, because they serve no purpose. They wont deal enough damage to drive the Isreali out, they wont get you any sympathy from impartial bystanders, so what is the point? Instead of being the violent party they should go and watch the movie Ghandi. There is a scene where the peaceful Indians are trying to "go somewhere" and they are then beaten up by a military unit. This makes it really clear who the "wrong party" is and who needs our sympathy.
Another example of a "good use" of using your own death is James Clavell's Shogun, where the "heroine" chooses to suicide in protest over an attack and to protect her lover.
Suiciding while killing other people is just the same as murder and not a noble deed in some cause.
This is the typical black and white view. Suicide while leaving kids behind or jumping in front of the train in front people is very different from someone being very old and sick and ending their life in a controlled way.
On November 25 2012 18:33 Rabiator wrote: "Suicide" and "suicide attack" are two different things. One of them is really despiccable and used by terrorists, but the other doesnt concern anyone but the person himself and should be acceptable since you should have the right to decide about your own life.
With the palestinians I can never understand the logic behind suicide attacks, because they serve no purpose. They wont deal enough damage to drive the Isreali out, they wont get you any sympathy from impartial bystanders, so what is the point? Instead of being the violent party they should go and watch the movie Ghandi. There is a scene where the peaceful Indians are trying to "go somewhere" and they are then beaten up by a military unit. This makes it really clear who the "wrong party" is and who needs our sympathy.
Another example of a "good use" of using your own death is James Clavell's Shogun, where the "heroine" chooses to suicide in protest over an attack and to protect her lover.
Suiciding while killing other people is just the same as murder and not a noble deed in some cause.
This is the typical black and white view. Suicide while leaving kids behind or jumping in front of the train in front people is very different from someone being very old and sick and ending their life in a controlled way.
Not to mention, it's pretty ridiculous to say that suicidal bombing is the only method of suicide that effects "anyone but the person himself."
Killing oneself due to some misguided belief: Not martyrdom.
Being killed or tortured because of some belief and refusing to recant / convert: Martyrdom.
I think the issue being discussed here is in poor taste. So many "martyrs" these days are poorly educated, already suicidal and/or insane. Some suffering elderly person or a person who doesn't want to be in a vegetative state who want to die are also not martyrs. Martyrdom has a certain amount of persecution involved, and not persecution leading to a suicidal nature, but persecution resulting in mutilation or death, usually over matters of religious disagreements.
EDIT: Is this supposed to be a discussion on the ethics of self-sacrifice? If so, suicide bombings are not self-sacrifice in the same way as jumping into the path of a bullet to save someone, or diving on a grenade to save your friends in a trench... More like getting into an intentional accident to try and sustain an injury so that you come off looking like the victim - a con.
On November 25 2012 19:44 dUTtrOACh wrote: I think the issue being discussed here is in poor taste. So many "martyrs" these days are poorly educated, already suicidal and/or insane. .
When you do martyrdom, you decide to end your life as it is now for a greater cause. Now the question is, what could be the greater cause motivating a well-educated and mentally stable young/middle-aged man that you can't really bullshit with fairytales and who is really enjoying his life ? It would need to be tremendous. Like, (almost) eternal glory or something similar.
In the real world, such occasions are exceptionally rare. Thus someone achieving martyrdom without a certain degree of insanity or disatisfaction with his life seems to me impossible.
I have nothing to say regarding this matter though. I feel the OP has hit the nail right on the head right from the get go and has taken the best plausible arguments already.
Asking us to discuss our own moral views regarding mothers encouraging children to commit suicide attacks against an enemy seems to me a rather fruitless affair.
On November 25 2012 19:44 dUTtrOACh wrote: Killing oneself due to some misguided belief: Not martyrdom.
Being killed or tortured because of some belief and refusing to recant / convert: Martyrdom.
I think the issue being discussed here is in poor taste. So many "martyrs" these days are poorly educated, already suicidal and/or insane. Some suffering elderly person or a person who doesn't want to be in a vegetative state who want to die are also not martyrs. Martyrdom has a certain amount of persecution involved, and not persecution leading to a suicidal nature, but persecution resulting in mutilation or death, usually over matters of religious disagreements.
EDIT: Is this supposed to be a discussion on the ethics of self-sacrifice? If so, suicide bombings are not self-sacrifice in the same way as jumping into the path of a bullet to save someone, or diving on a grenade to save your friends in a trench... More like getting into an intentional accident to try and sustain an injury so that you come off looking like the victim - a con.
I understand that it's morally disagreeable to parallel actions of suicide bombing in particular with self sacrifice, that wasn't the main point of the argument. The main point was the fact that the motivating forces behind suicide bombing is present in the action of suicide taken for the most mundane or extreme of reasons, hence the sub headings. Whether or not we as individuals have differing moral standards of where we draw the line of acceptable behavior / moral behavior, it's impossible to simply ignore the fact that these motivating forces are fundamentally the same. To me this realization is alot more important, and in some respects both terrifying and reassuring at the same time to know that humanity shares so much in common.
On November 25 2012 18:10 Protoss-Bah wrote: If you take a gun and shoot yourself to the head - just so that you know - you will not die immediately. It might not take long for you to die, but it will take a few minutes of complete pain.
If you use an acid which you think is a "fast death", believe me, you will suffer extreme pain for long parts. Eventually you might die, but in a painful manner.
If you jump off a building --> same thing.
Apparently people here are considering suicide, otherwise this kind of nonsense topic wouldn't even exist. Looking at these kinds of topics just shows me how damn faithless this God-less generation has become but it's all your own fault. A happy person will not even think the thought of suicide - ever. Just know that it's not going to be painless even with the methods you think are "quick".
And you're not going to go down like a "martyr", you're going down like an egoist who hurt his mother, his father, his friends and his surrounding, plus you hurt those people who had to watch you jump in front of the train (again, not an immediate death). And you hurt those social workers who have to clean up the mess you left. A martyr is like von Stauffenberg who sacrificed his life just to try help other people. You could sort of say that J.F. Kennedy died as a martyr. A suicider - dies in disgrace and as an egoist.
This was a very disturbing post in an otherwise good thread. You definitely seem fixated on people not dying immediately and experiencing pain why is that?
On November 25 2012 18:10 Protoss-Bah wrote: If you take a gun and shoot yourself to the head - just so that you know - you will not die immediately. It might not take long for you to die, but it will take a few minutes of complete pain.
If you use an acid which you think is a "fast death", believe me, you will suffer extreme pain for long parts. Eventually you might die, but in a painful manner.
If you jump off a building --> same thing.
Apparently people here are considering suicide, otherwise this kind of nonsense topic wouldn't even exist. Looking at these kinds of topics just shows me how damn faithless this God-less generation has become but it's all your own fault. A happy person will not even think the thought of suicide - ever. Just know that it's not going to be painless even with the methods you think are "quick".
And you're not going to go down like a "martyr", you're going down like an egoist who hurt his mother, his father, his friends and his surrounding, plus you hurt those people who had to watch you jump in front of the train (again, not an immediate death). And you hurt those social workers who have to clean up the mess you left. A martyr is like von Stauffenberg who sacrificed his life just to try help other people. You could sort of say that J.F. Kennedy died as a martyr. A suicider - dies in disgrace and as an egoist.
The OP highlights some inconsistencies with in modern and historical culture, we glorify the actions of certain castes or members of society when they commit actions of self sacrifice to the benefit of some arbitrary class of people (usually the ruling class), and we demonize others similarly also arbitrarily to our own individual preferences and moral standards. Even if you use the most unambiguous examples of self sacrifice committed by the greatest and most moral examples of human beings, we all have to realize that the motivating forces behind these individuals draw from the same pool of factors (superstition, belief in nationalistic or collective values, self glorification, social pressure and depression, existential value, inflicting terror on others, etc).
Whether or not the logics or assumptions are misconstrued, whether or not their efforts actually make a difference, whether or not the difference even positively affects the future is completely unknown to the individual. It becomes alot more ambiguous the more you consider the actions of individuals who dedicate themselves to a specific cause for their entire life, may it be the most lofty or pathetic of human drives (which is why I intend this to be a series of articles if people are willing to participate in the discussion, to compare and contrast examples). We define a person's achievement in life very much by how he/she died, or how he/she died trying, since death is the logical cut off point of the summation of what a person can amount to be. We plan life around factual inevitabilities and we prioritize factors of our own lives around the inevitability of death.
An individual doesn't need to be personally committed or persuaded to suicide to find this issue important and its implications profound, everyone is reminded in their life of their own morality, often by the death (some times suicide) of those who they are closest to and emotionally invested in. The prospect that others have laid down their lives so that you can have a prosperous future, the prospects that you yourself may be called upon by any number of forces in ambiguous situations to make decisions of self sacrifice with out the ability to determine future events and consequences, these are all aspects deeply woven into every part of human society regardless of cultural or ethical background.
So no I don't think that "people here are considering suicide, otherwise this kind of nonsense topic wouldn't even exist".
I'm not into this topic focusing on Palestine; it gives people excuses to draw ridiculous racial or historical conclusions. The original suicide terrorists were 1st century Jews. The originals in the modern sense were the Tamil Tigers, a completely secular group.
On November 25 2012 19:44 dUTtrOACh wrote: I think the issue being discussed here is in poor taste. So many "martyrs" these days are poorly educated, already suicidal and/or insane. .
When you do martyrdom, you decide to end your life as it is now for a greater cause. Now the question is, what could be the greater cause motivating a well-educated and mentally stable young/middle-aged man that you can't really bullshit with fairytales and who is really enjoying his life ? It would need to be tremendous. Like, (almost) eternal glory or something similar.
In the real world, such occasions are exceptionally rare. Thus someone achieving martyrdom without a certain degree of insanity or disatisfaction with his life seems to me impossible.
My problem is the fact that I disagree with the definition you're using for Martyrdom. Blowing yourself up in a crowded market is some straight-up bullshit. Being stoned to death for being the "wrong" religion or believing something different from your persecutor(s) is martyrdom. I'm saying you need to be murdered / tortured for a martyrdom to even occur. You don't do martyrdom - martyrdom is done to you.
What happens when some "well-educated", "stable" individual kills him/herself to damage their enemy is not martyrdom. It's a suicide attack. For people to even equate this with martyrdom is a sign that their society and culture are fundamentally fucked up. Martyrs are victims, not engaging themselves in victimization. I don't know how many different ways I can say this.
On November 25 2012 19:44 dUTtrOACh wrote: I think the issue being discussed here is in poor taste. So many "martyrs" these days are poorly educated, already suicidal and/or insane. .
When you do martyrdom, you decide to end your life as it is now for a greater cause. Now the question is, what could be the greater cause motivating a well-educated and mentally stable young/middle-aged man that you can't really bullshit with fairytales and who is really enjoying his life ? It would need to be tremendous. Like, (almost) eternal glory or something similar.
In the real world, such occasions are exceptionally rare. Thus someone achieving martyrdom without a certain degree of insanity or disatisfaction with his life seems to me impossible.
My problem is the fact that I disagree with the definition you're using for Martyrdom. Blowing yourself up in a crowded market is some straight-up bullshit. Being stoned to death for being the "wrong" religion or believing something different from your persecutor(s) is martyrdom. I'm saying you need to be murdered / tortured for a martyrdom to even occur. You don't do martyrdom - martyrdom is done to you.
What happens when some "well-educated", "stable" individual kills him/herself to damage their enemy is not martyrdom. It's a suicide attack. For people to even equate this with martyrdom is a sign that their society and culture are fundamentally fucked up. Martyrs are victims, not engaging themselves in victimization. I don't know how many different ways I can say this.
If Martyrs are infact just victims, why should it matter what age, class, education an individual is? Why even draw that distinction? Just because you are advantaged in one aspect of life doesn't mean that you can't be penalized or killed for your beliefs. The people who engage in suicide attacks Palestine are not playing themselves as victims, they aren't engaging themselves in victimization, nor should that even matter. A martyr to his/her own belief / cause may be denounced as a heretic or a lunatic by someone who doesn't share their cause or belief, it doesn't matter how reasoned that belief even is. It could be Giordano Bruno being burned at the stake for heresy for defending values of mathematics and science, who repeatedly defended his views with the knowledge that he will be found guilty and killed for it. Or it could be Joan of Arc who is declared a martyr officially by the Catholic bureaucracy with beliefs of visions, divine messages, and divine purpose.
External societal judgement shouldn't factor in to whether or not the act of suffering death in adherence to a cause or religious belief is valid or invalid, because given any arbitrary number of external observers there's an arbitrary number of evaluations on whether the cause of the individual was just or moral. We can argue about whether or not the cause itself is valid or invalid, we can argue about whether it has the intended impact, we can even argue about whether or not the individual is insane or mislead, but we can't deny the nature of it.
I personally think that the entire idea of martyrdom itself is misconstrued and its assumptions illogical, where in an ideal world you should never even need to martyr yourself for a cause because civil discourse should suffice to communicate a message, and that the idea of glorifying or honouring martyrs is detrimental to society instead of actually appraising the values that they stood for. But that doesn't stop the phenomenon of people who martyr themselves.
Martyrdom doesn't need to take the format where one party is stripped of all of his freedom and choice and is the "victim", because if you put it that way, what's to say that the individual wouldn't have chosen to abandon his faith and choose life if he had the choice to? And if he/she made the conscious choice to defend his faith at all costs, why is it that he can not take an active format of suffering / suicide to accomplish it? There's so many varying formats of it, be it civil disobedience and death by starvation or other formats of inactivity, actively placing yourself in harm's way to protect your ideology where you can avoid it, or actively killing yourself to protest a specific message. Whether or not you hurt other people in the process, or if you intend to hurt other people in the process is a subsidiary discussion on the subject of martyrdom, not a determining factor of if the action is martyrdom. Almost all martyrs commit it with the intention of "sending a message" or hurting the oppressive party in some manner, be it loss of support, fear, practical gains in information or tangible objects, or direct physical harm.
EPT
