The reason most suicide bombings involve western invasion is simple: As a relatively primitive culture, they have to have an enemy present to strike them. Invaders = more available enemy to strike.Originally Posted by tequila
I would not get too worked up over "which" part of the tribal world we're involved in a conflict with. I'm generalizing by necessity.
Do you NOT think that the largely disparate cultures are a significant part of the reason we fight?
Idea that “Western Culture” need to win sounds to me way to imperialistic and colonialistic, to agree with it. And, idea that every single one in the Word just waiting to be “liberated” (and in that process they country invaded either culturally either military) for saggy Mac Donald’s burgers and calorie full Coke is just -wrong.
Why they culture need to change in the first place? Because they are not same like yours?
Source of problems Islamic culture (countries) have with West have anything to do with freedom, liberty, and democracy, but have everything to do with Western policies and actions in the Muslim world. Everything will be different and better if Muslims did not believe their faith, brethren, resources, and lands to be under attack by the West.
To quote Scheuer:
And from Imperial Hubris:“Right or wrong, Muslims are beginning to view the United States as a colonial power with Israel as its surrogate, and with a military presence in three of the holiest places in Islam: the Arabian peninsula, Iraq, and Jerusalem. It is time to review and debate American policy in the region, even our relationship with Israel.
"No one wants to abandon the Israelis. But I think the perception is, and I think it's probably an accurate perception, that the tail is leading the dog - that we are giving the Israelis carte blanche ability to exercise whatever they want to do in their area. And if that's what the American people want, then that's what the policy should be, of course. But the idea that anything in the United States is too sensitive to discuss or too dangerous to discuss is really, I think, absurd."
And calling someone primitive or hating them for being different is almost same in value, if you ask me.• U.S. leaders refuse to accept the obvious: We are fighting a worldwide Islamic insurgency—not criminality or terrorism—and our policy and procedures have failed to make more than a modest dent in enemy forces.
• The military is now America's only tool and will remain so while current policies are in place. No public diplomacy, presidential praise for Islam, or politically correct debate masking the reality that many of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims hate us for actions not values, will get America out of this war.
• Bin Laden has been precise in telling America the reasons he is waging war on us. None of the reasons have anything to do with our freedom, liberty, and democracy, but have everything to do with U.S. policies and actions in the Muslim world. Islamic religion. He could not have his current—and increasing—level of success if Muslims did not believe their faith, brethren, resources, and lands to be under attack by the United States and, more generally, the West. Indeed, the United States, and its policies and actions, are bin Laden's only indispensable allies.
…
The military is now America's only tool and will remain so while current policies are in place. No public diplomacy, presidential praise for Islam, or politically correct debate masking the reality that many of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims hate us for actions not values…
Analyze this recent attack:
In light of the discussion so far, read this AP account of a recent high profile suicide attack. How does this fit the MO, what is the effect: short and long term?
NATO: Intelligence suggested bomb threat By JASON STRAZIUSO, Associated Press Writer
Wed Feb 28, 3:01 PM ET
Intelligence reports indicated that the Taliban had the ability to carry out suicide attacks near the main U.S. base in Afghanistan even before a bloody bombing during a visit by Vice President Dick Cheney, NATO said Wednesday.
Col. Tom Collins, the top spokesman for NATO's force in Afghanistan, said suicide bomb cells were present in the capital, Kabul, just 30 miles south of Bagram Air Base.
"We know for a fact that there has been recent intelligence to suggest that there was the threat of a bombing in the Bagram area," Collins told reporters. "It's clear that there are suicide bomber cells operating in this country. There are some in the city of Kabul."
Tuesday's bombing killed 23 people, including two Americans, outside Bagram while Cheney was meeting with officials inside. The Taliban claimed the attack was aimed at Cheney, but officials said it posed no real threat to the vice president.
The attacker never tried to penetrate even the first of several U.S.-manned security checkpoints at Bagram, instead detonating his explosives among a group of Afghan workers outside the base.
"The Taliban's claims that they were going after the vice president were absurd," Collins said.
Collins said it was unclear whether the Taliban had really known of Cheney's visit, or if the timing of the attack was a coincidence. The last suicide bombing at Bagram was in June 2006, when an attack aimed at a U.S. convoy wounded two Afghans near a market area outside the base.
U.S. Ambassador Ronald Neumann said he did not believe the Taliban had responded to Cheney's presence, given that he arrived on Monday and only stayed the night because bad weather forced him to postpone a meeting with Afghan President Hamid Karzai.
"I just have not seen the ability to react that quickly, to grab your handy-dandy latest suicide candidate, who is usually not your brightest fellow around, and get him mobilized and get him up to the gate," Neumann said. "It strains credulity for me."
He said Cheney "could have been in New York for all the threat" the bomb posed.
Afghanistan's Interior Ministry said a preliminary investigation suggested the bomber was a foreigner. But Lt. Col. David Accetta, a U.S. military spokesman, said the best that investigators could determine was that the bomber was of "Middle Eastern descent," meaning he could have been from Afghanistan, Pakistan or other neighboring countries.
___
Associated Press reporter Fisnik Abrashi contributed to this report.
That's not my point at all. A large portion of the world believes in treating women like property, tribalism and revenge/honor killings. They also believe in a form of conservatism that values chastity, among other things.
The "communications revolution" combined with the amoral (anti-moral?) content being imported into their cultures whether they want it or not, is destroying their culture.
In effect, the corrosive effect of Britney Spears and Animal Sex on the internet, available 24/7 is damaging to their culture. And while they consume it willingly, I don't think they believe that it is willing consumption.
My point is not that I don't think that the US is imperial. I don't think we KNOW that we are imperial.
And as far as wanting "our side" to win, no, I don't want my head sawed off with a rusty knife, and I don't want my wife put into a sack and stoned to death. THAT is what I call Primitive Behavior.
I would be willing to let folks in the part of the world (that is undefinable, because the Definition Nazis on the board will jump all over me) "just live their lives", but that is not the nature of humanity.
120mm - What evidence do you have for your view that cultural difference (exemplified, I suppose, by internet pornography) is the principle reason for Islamist suicide attacks, as opposed to the reasons listed by Islamist terrorists in their numerous statements of purpose which almost exclusively reference politics?
One could make the argument that tribalism, the treatment of women as property, violence, etc. are far more prevalent in sub-Saharan Africa than in the Muslim Middle East. Yet we have a distinct lack of African terrorists. What accounts for this?
I'm sorry, I have left the path. I wasn't talking about suicide bombings. I was talking about the overall conflict between the two cultures. The suicide bombing is merely a small portion, a "tactic" if you will.
On the subject of the Islamist terrorists "statements of purpose", you do know that UBL, et al have listed "America's abuse of the environment" as one of the reasons for attacking the WTC, right? I doubt the average terrorist gives a rip about "the environment. There statements are mainly "bull####" imho. They have a few trick ponies they walk out on the street now and again for the dhimmis.
I think it is most likely that the guys who issue statements desire power and power alone.
On the subject of African lack of terror, I reference Marc's above statement about the sentiment that the Arabs once ruled the world, and feel cheated that they still do not.
I also do not see a strong sense of moralism in African tribes. If there were, where did all the AIDS come from? At the risk of generalizing, Africans don't have the history of world domination and civilization, and I don't "think" they have a uniting moralizing religion which will be crushed by western society.
And, oh yeah, they also don't have huge oil reserves to purchase.
As I am dying the "death of a thousand cuts" through your questions, I'm interested in maybe you putting out some of your ideas. Perhaps that will shorten this exercise....
They don’t care what you posting or watching on Internet… One just DOESN’T need to look of it and he will not see it. That’s not problem. Problem is when “your” culture, values and rules are FORCED on “theirs”. Simple.
You say it’s not “nature of humanity” to let others "just live their lives"!? Did I understand you well here?
Once again… Beheading, full covering of woman, stoning are customs of SOME people/tribes/sects and not part of real Islamic thought and culture.
Same like one would say that random killings of kids in schools, sexslavery and prostitution, racism, etc is not part of real “western culture”. One would say it is part of collective Primitive Behavior.
I dare to say, there is no difference between “western” or “eastern” Primitivism.
Acts of impotence
Human bomb attacks are acts of impotence and they are rarely aimed at invading forces. The vast majority are aimed at non combatants. In Iraq the victims are almost all Shia Muslims. The recent attack in Afghanistan killed one US soldier and 22 others, which suggest that if were targeting "invading forces" he was a poor shot.
A brief comment on the "cultural" battle. One of the significant difference between western culture and the culture of the jihadi is that we do not glorify the depravity that sometimes occurs. By that I mean that people who go on a killing rampage in a high school are not considered someone to emulate and put on posters.
And I don’t say that they should be put on posters… I was just saying that “primitivism” is multicultural thing.
And about other thing. I agree with you but also wonder…
How will they play “game” if they have all those toys and gadgets? Would they be called heroes flying planes and bombing villages and doing “collateral damage” or they will still be “impotent”?
I don’t know. Seams to me, suicide bombings coming from desperation and lack of real weapon systems rather then impotence.
PS.
I was talking about western and islamic culture. Not jihadi.
...figured I'd put this here as well, because of the subject matter - although it has it's own thread in the OEF-Afghanistan forum:
Cheney Attack Reveals Taliban Suicide Bombing Patterns
...Iraqi suicide bombers from such jihadi groups as Ansar al-Sunnah and al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia frequently seek to inflict high casualty rates by attacking soft targets, such as crowded markets. Their objective is to cause as much bloodshed as possible, incite sectarian violence and destroy U.S. efforts to construct civil society in Iraq. Afghan suicide bombers, on the other hand, appear to have different objectives and have focused almost exclusively on hard targets (government, police, military). In 2007, for example, the Taliban have attacked foreign or Afghan military/police targets in 16 of their 22 bombings (in three cases the target was undetermined).
This in-depth analysis of 158 Afghan suicide bombings since 2001 shows that this is no anomaly and demonstrates an important point: in only eight of the 158 suicide attacks from 2001-2007 did civilians appear to be the direct target of Afghan bombers. Further scrutiny of these eight civilian attacks reveals an important fact. In two of these instances, the Taliban apologized for inflicting civilian casualties and in one case a Taliban spokesmen actually denied involvement. In four other cases the suicide bombers seem to have been targeting passing military convoys or governmental representatives in crowds; therefore, the high civilian casualties appear to have been unintended "collateral damage." In only two instances were civilians clearly the target of Afghan suicide bombers.
These findings tell us volumes about the Taliban's overall strategy in employing suicide bombing as a tactic. Far from imitating Iraqi insurgent tactics, the Taliban are trying to avoid losing the battle for the hearts and minds of the Afghan people by needlessly killing civilians....
Except that I am a member of the "western" primitivism, and do not wish to be subject to the whims of "eastern" primitivism.
Back to the subject of suicide bombing: I believe it is the natural outgrowth of being continually embarrassed on the field of battle by opposition forces. Warriors who cannot succeed on the battlefield are forced to adapt different tactics, of which suicide bombing is one.
I do not see suicide bombing as an unnatural progression of warfare. When it's all you have, it's what you use.
Last edited by 120mm; 03-02-2007 at 07:21 AM.
I see. Well, at least you admitting your "western primitivism". But, realizing there is no much room for reasoning here, I will stop. Bias is just too big clouding the reality, fair judgment & truth. But, I am not surprised at all. Whatever.
Time will tell.
Last edited by Sarajevo071; 03-02-2007 at 03:53 PM.
I am somewhat guilty of "thinking out loud" on my keyboard. Please forgive me if I've given offense, but I think that a failure to support my own "in-group" in favor of an "out-group" doesn't make much sense.
Now, if my "in-group" can find a way to sustain a state of peace with other "out-groups" that would be fine. I'm just not holding my breath on this happening.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks