The Assassins
The Aliwhite(sp?) cult in the time of Saladin is sometimes given as a model for the modern human ordinance used in the Middle East. The origin of the word assassin is traced back to them. Perhaps they are the Shia related cult that others referred to.
I agree with those who suggest that the normal raiding warfare of the Middle East was not a precursor of the current human ordinance attacks. They are in fact the opposite where weak targets are hit followed by a quick retreat. Where the analogy might fit with the human ordinance attack is the belief that exploding oneself in the presence of an enemy is a ticket to paradise, which is, I guess, the ultimate retreat.
Yes, I agree.
Everything (when we talk about ME) started with Shia Assassins and Old Man from the Mountain… Iran-Iraq war brought “sacrifice warfare” back in modern conflicts and Hezbollah up that in Lebanon. Sunni groups refused notions of that “sacrifice" until recent need to answer military powerful attackers and wage PSYOPS on them and inflict big casualty rate with loosing only one or couple guys… But it is War in Chechnya that gave born today’s Sunni tactics, reasoning and modern use.
Those were the "Hashashin", who were Ismaili Shia. The Ismailis still exist; they have a website here, and are now probably the most modernized Shia sect around.
Bernard Lewis states that modern Arab culture was heavily influenced by the Greeks. A question to the Council: How relevant do you think this is to today's conflict?
I can feel my brain growing bigger, reading these posts. Lots of subjects for consideration. Thanks for all the good input.
That is good stuff. I am interested in a reference, or an explanation about "how" the War in Chechnya influenced the Sunni tactics, and what tactics we are talking about. Just suicide bombs, or IEDs as well? I need to read more about Chechnya, it seems. Any suggestions on good books on the subject?Originally Posted by Sarajevo071
The best stuff on the Chechins I have seen--and I admit I am not the best read on this AO--is from FMSO, Les Grau and company.
I do concur fully on the differences in origins of suicide tactics among the Shia resting with the Old Man of the Mountain, especially as it relates to Lebanon and Hizballah.
Best
Tom
Chechen related suicide attacks did not begin until 2000. Through five years of conflict (the First Chechen War 1994-1996 and the first year of the second war), there were no Chechen related suicide bombings in Russia.
The vast majority of suicide bombings have been directed at those whom the Chechen separatists consider combatants. The preponderance of these attacks has been directed at military installations and government compounds in and around Chechnya.
There is no evidence of foreign involvement in either the planning or execution of Chechen suicide attacks. There is no evidence of foreign involvement in either the planning or execution of Chechen suicide attacks.
In contrast to Palestinian National Authority where suicide bombers and/or their families often receive large rewards from Arab sponsors, there is no evidence of financial rewards being given to Chechen suicide bombers.
A majority of the identified Chechen suicide bombers were victims of Russian “counter-terrorist” operations. None of the identified Chechen suicide bombers were socially or economically marginalized relative to the surrounding Chechen population, nor did they exhibit any apparent preexisting psychopathologies or homicidal inclinations.
Despair, hopelessness, and a sense of injustice are the lowest common denominators that almost always precipitate suicide terrorism in Chechnya. Even in those cases when Chechen suicide bombers were clearly manipulated by ‘handlers,’ it remains clear that desperation and a desire for revenge makes them more susceptible to this manipulation.
Females comprise a clear majority of Chechnya’s suicide bombers, as 68% of identified Chechen suicide bombers are female. This is in contrast to Palestine, where females make up only a very small minority (ca 5%) of attackers.
Many females in Chechnya experienced lost of they family members or they was raped or other way humiliated, and in tradition of they hard life in North Caucasus, they decided not just to be victims and to take revenge. Leaders of Chechnya Resistance use that to give message to they fighters that if woman can do that man should fight harder and do more…
In same time they start justifying new tactics with chosen examples from they rich warrior history and sacrifice in they wars, quotes from Koran, fatwas from religious leaders… One could easy argue that all that start with risen influences of Wahabi thought in Chechnya Jamats and Islamic radicalization of war in Chechnya. West left them to the Russia so they turn for the help where they could get one… Middle East.
AQ saw success of suicide attacks in Chechnya and quickly adopted and welcomed that idea. Insisting of examples from Palestine and from war in Chechnya, they urged they own people to use same weapons. Based on those examples from war in Chechnya in 2000. AQ exploited and market that idea all over the World.
By them, since West is so materialistic and hooked on earthly life and goods idea that one would sacrifice his life regardless of age, status or education, that would terrified and paralyze West. In same time, personal examples of sacrifices would turn other Muslims to they idea, “wake the Umma” and show the rest of Muslims (who are “lost”) path to the true Islam.
And yes, videos of IEDs were all over the Internet long before any other theater get to use them. But that is not so surprising since Russian own military doctrine was based on people defense against advanced enemy and majority of people knew basic sabotage tactics… “All people are Army” concept is concept behind Socialistic public education. Fighters from Chechnya went in Afghanistan sharing knowledge and experience, while in return getting bases, weapons and training for others fronts in Caucasus.
PS.
My apologies for not getting back to you sooner… I was busy with other things.
Last edited by Sarajevo071; 03-18-2007 at 03:05 AM.
Talking about books… There are many of them and these are just small examples:
My Jihad: The True Story of An American Mujahid's Amazing Journey from Usama Bin Laden's Training Camps to Counterterrorism with the FBI and CIA
by Aukai Collins
http://www.amazon.com/My-Jihad-Ameri...4182996&sr=1-2
(GREAT personal story and good look on battlefields in Chechnya!)
Allah's Mountains: The Battle for Chechnya
by Sebastian Smith
http://www.amazon.com/Allahs-Mountai...4183063&sr=1-1
A Small Corner of Hell: Dispatches from Chechnya
by Anna Politkovskaya
http://www.amazon.com/Small-Corner-H...4183102&sr=1-1
Grief of My Heart: Memoirs of a Chechen Surgeon
by Khassan, M.D. Baiev
http://www.amazon.com/Grief-My-Heart...4183142&sr=1-1
The War in Chechnya (Eastern European Studies (College Station, Tex.), No. 8.)
by Stasys Knezys and Romanas Sedlickas
http://www.amazon.com/Chechnya-Easte...4183456&sr=1-1
Chechnya: Tombstone of Russian Power
by Anatol Lieven
http://www.amazon.com/Chechnya-Tombs.../dp/0300078811
My War Gone by, I Miss It So
http://www.amazon.com/My-War-Gone-Mi...83265&sr=1-1by Anthony Loyd
(My personal favorite! His descriptions of war in Chechnya would give you idea why would people in Chechnya turn to suicide attacks and accepts Wahabi radical ideas. He went back in Bosnian war to get rest of war in Chechnya!!?)
Not books, but SWJED provided links last May to the pdf transcripts of a series of interviews conducted with Chechen commanders back in '99.
Recent television show
Did anyone catch the recent show that highlighted the culture of suicide bombers, dating back to the almost teenage Iranian soldier who loaded himself down with explosives and charged a Iraqi tank?
It could have been the History Channel or National Geographic show for all I can remember. It may have even been Pelton conducting the interviews. A couple of things stuck with me though, and I think they are important:
1) The sense of martyrdom is enhanced through the IO aspect of murals, posters, T-shirts, etc., that make it into the open to render honor to a bomber. These are powerful images indeed, and I imagine they shape the youth that see them in much the same way that Provo murals influenced the minds of young Irish lads growing up during the troubles. I've been driven to ask myself where the line exists between suicide/martyrdom in the Judeo-Christian and Islamic contexts.
2) As long as martyrdom can be held up as a noble construct that suppresses the fear of death (or at least allows a candidate to overcome his fear), there may never be an effective countermeasure beyond blunt force.
Not sure if is same documentary but to me that sounds like:
The Cult of the Suicide Bomber (2005) with ex-CIA Robert Baer narrating and going in places like Iran, Hezbollah heartland in Lebanon, Palestine...
http://www.amazon.com/Cult-Suicide-B.../dp/B000FG8BO6
Or could be:
Inside the Mind of a Suicide Bomber (History Channel) (2003)
http://www.amazon.com/Inside-Suicide...658104-2043108
But if you are talking about first movie it is very informative and made good.
The reason is it works
I read over the heated posts on this site, and wonder why there is so much debate over why terrorists employ suicide bombers as a tactic. The primary reason is that it works, and the second order effects just keep on giving:
1. Sucide Bombers not only create a climate of fear, but require our forces to use defensive tactics that are counter productive in winning the hearts and minds.
2. Once the tactic is validated not only by its effectiveness, but by its social acceptance, it will rapidly spread (find more an more volunteers). The global media (T.V., internet, etc.) has made it not only acceptable, but desirable.
3. It is a poor man's guided missile that not only goes bang and achieves the desired tactical effects, but makes the headlines, sells the war effort (creation of martyrs), and forces us to spend a disproportionate amount of money on defensive measures.
I found the talk about money somewhat amusing, because suicide bombers don't bomb for money, they do it for the cause they believe in. Do you fight only for money? Several suicide bombers are well educated and finacially secure. We're attempting to wish a problem away if we think throwing money at it will change the conditions. While I think the PRTs are doing great work, what effect are they really having? Are we winning? If you hate someone, and then they offer you a $100.00 and ask you how do you like me now? What are you going to say? Listen to the narratives of the terrorists and you will realize you're not going to win them over anytime soon with economic incentives. The economic olive branch is extended to those sitting on the fence, in hopes they don't join the terrorists.
What concerns me is the spread of terrorism throughout the Muslim world, becaus it was not culturally acceptable in Afghanistan, and I think we'll start seeing it employed in SE Asia within the next couple of years.
If Jim Jones can convince educated Westerners to drink the poison Kool Aid, then I don't see why it is so hard to understand why soldiers who are devoutly religious would be willing to die to further their cause. Perhaps our culture has become so materialistic and void of values that we simply can't comprehend this act? Why do we think everyone wants to be like us, the Prozac nation? I think we need to "accept" the fact that many people hate us with a passion, regardless of how many candy bars we pass out, and hate is a powerful emotion that can and is exploited.
"Suicide Bombers Profiles, Methods and Techniques," by SFC Merle Miyasato
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/doc...de-Bombers.pdf
No one here, was saying they fight "only for money". the "heated exchange" was in response to Sarajevo CLAIMING we said the suicide bombers were fighting "only for money." To overreact and build the straw man argument that any individual here is so foolish as to claim that kind of ticks me off. (I take it as a personal affront.)
Having said that, money is a significant reason why I, personally, remain in uniform. And I am not "materialistic". I'm more of the "wanting to feed my family without being on welfare" ilk. My membership in the Reserves has limited my employment ability to sub-poverty level jobs or military contracting. In fact, yours and Sarajevos insinuation that I am "materialistic" (whatever the hell that means), because I dared to discuss the issue, kind of pisses me off.
The question was, and remains, what role does money play in the decision to become a suicide bomber. The answer, as Sarajevo has pointed out so eloquently in subsequent posts appears to be, "It's different, based on your culture." Personally, if my culture supported suicide bombing, money in sufficient amounts to care for my family in perpetuity, wouldn't be a cause for me to become a suicide bomber, but I believe it would influence my decision, based on my already-mentioned brush with poverty and the fact that my role as husband, father and provider has once been damaged to the point where I considered myself worth less than my insurance policy.
Thank you for the reading suggestions, I will make an effort to get through them. And my apologies if I am misreading intent, here, and for any slights I may have given.
Hm… OK. Me taking the high road and not wishing to go into pissing competition with you seams didn’t work and you take that like my agreement that you are right. Please, don’t take my measured responses before like my weakness. I was only being polite guest here. But, you pushed. So, here it goes…
(Others, please forgive me long response and explanations but I deem then necessary in this case)
120mm,
I wasn’t “implying” anything and I thought I was clear without need to spell out every single thing. I guess my mistake. Sorry, I don’t have PhD. So, let me correct that now.
I strongly believe that other “minor things” have to do MORE with they hate and wish to sacrifice themselves then money! Like:
Decade long sanctions that killed HALF-MILLION Iraqi kids, bombing or shooting they civilians left and right, killings tens of thousands of they soldiers, invading they country for no real reason except oil and Israel security and based on BIG lie about Iraqi connections with 9/11 and terrorism, CONTINUES killings, imprisonment and rapes of innocent Iraqis (many of them FRIENDLY to US but after imprisonment, torture or killings of they family members, women and kids, end up going STRAIGHT to Insurgency or to suicide missions), for bringing terrorism and sectarian war in they country (things that they did NOT have before)…
MAYBE, just maybe that “minor” things have to do more with ever growing hate and resentment of US and West, and ever growing fear of Muslim world that is showing in growing numbers of suicide attacks and support in Muslim masses that they will not support that otherwise! Also, I dare to say here… Most Muslims do not support those attacks, especially against civilians, but after everything that happened they understand. And that’s huge thing considering how much Islam is against suicide and attacking and hurting civilians.
If you know a drop about your state of mind and motivations of your enemy (you mention of being interrogator!?) you should know all this by yourself (or try to learn) … But you don’t. You keep insisting on YOUR OWN reasons why you stayed in reserve, and you keep mentioning reason is - MONEY!?
You self (for second or third time) proving my own point of western materialistic mind-set and keep insisting of applying your own western/materialistic values in trying to understand something that have NOTHING to do with materialism! And then, you get offended for me calling you materialistic… Where is mentioning of “doing the right thing” or “patriotism” in your reasons!? Since you are not materialistic… I can see only mention of money.
If you know your enemy you will know that they believe that doing that “sacrifice” is precisely the right way of helping they families (and themselves). Having in mind monetary “security” would be monetary gain which if AGAINST everything they believe and doing for! If you know a drop about your state of mind and motivations of your enemy you will know that no one is doing that for the monetary gain, money security or “pension payments”… And that no one goes around asking “who will help and pay my family if I do this?” They just DON’T DO THAT.
Insisting that you are right and that we should accept that, and we should based anti-terror fight on that wrong assumption would put us in bigger danger since we will develop wrong tactic and fight wrong battles… Like we are doing right now.
end and out.
Very good points, Sarajevo. But I fail to see where you connect "wanting to see one's family survive" to "materialism." If you deconstruct it far enough, your desire to breathe can be shown as a completely selfish act of rampant "materialism." Some of the most "materialistic" people I have ever known happen to come from the "Oriental" world.
Also would be very interested in "why" various sympathetic agents pay the families of suicide bombers. I can think of a few reasons: They want to be seen as "supporting the struggle" without actually risking their own status quo. Do terrorists and their supporters see through this? Was Saddam's payment of Palestinian suicide bombers seen as insincere, or was it seen as "Saddam finally coming around to our point of view."
It is possible that the paying of money could be an I/O campaign aimed at the "materialistic west" and we somehow miss the meaning of it entirely.
At least in the Arab cultures I'm familiar with, largesse is common. To my reasoning, it is to show that "materialism" means nothing to them. Is this just a western-misinterpreted Arab largesse?
On the point of soldiering for money: It is not uncommon, regardless of culture. I continue to put my uniform on during drills and training because it pays well. At one time I did it for adventure. At another I did it for patriotism. Now, though, after doing it for 20+ years, it has become such a part of me; I both hate and love it, but if they missed a paycheck, I'd retire and never go back. I can't see a suicide bomber doing it for money, but I think there is a certain utility to a discussion of what role money DOES play in COIN, because it most surely does.
Not that. I was simply referring on your look being “too materialistic and to western” looking thru that experience… And I was comparing my own experience… Being wounded 2 times, loosing so much on material and almost everything on personal level, and not getting dime to show for it… Except “satisfaction” that I did “right thing”.
Stupid, I know.
I believe I answer (or I tried to answer) that from they perspective… One can be part of (armed) jihad in many different ways. Fighting, material support, moral support, spreading the word and news, praying for mujahideens… So those who don’t fight they send money. That’s not payment but rather “gratitude” and “thanks” for they sacrifice for better Umma (meaning ALL of Muslims). I think, it’s bigger benefit for those are GIVING then for those that receive. Or something like that.
Look, you have many examples of jihadi leaving they jobs, riches, carriers, families (with small kids, even babies!) behind them… If that is not non-materialistic then I don’t know what is it. You are right in the way that war payments & war booty is common in Arabs. But first made distinction between Arabs (Arab have wide meaning) and Muslims. Then you will see that Muslims (being Arab or not) see spending wealth in Jihad like form of being in war! So for them that will not be “spending” or “rewording” others or paying them but more like “investing” in they own well being like Muslims and afterlife.
But not that much that I think you seems to imply… Yes, it’s not uncommon for asking to be paid. Soldiers need food, weapons and clothes. What I am saying is - that’s not primary reason why Muslim soldiers going in jihad. Nor why they doing suicide attacks. If you read those examples from Chechnya you will see that none of them was paid and that primary reason was revenge and wish to do something with only weapons they have… They own life.
That was actual explanation of one Palestinian suicide bomber.
Now, I would like to thank you on all your responses, time and posts, and I wish to stop here… We made good arguments and points but I think we are talking to much space and time from others.
Not "stupid"; standing up for what you believe in and doing the "right thing" is rarely "stupid" although individual actions in the course of doing "the right thing" may be. That is something inherent in the human condition.
Christianity has / had a similar concept (i.e. the Communion of Saints). It's still in the theology, but it isn't part of most Christian's "lived reality". As Christianity moved more and more into a more secular and/or personal form, this pretty much disappeared from the overall cultures. I suspect that the final nail in its coffin was he 30 years war in Germany during he 17th century that gave rise to the modern nation state system.
I'm bringing this up because the idea of the Umma is quite hard for most Westerners to understand, at least in its practical application in furtherance of a jihad.
And that type of mindset is almost non-existent in the West, which is why it is so hard to understand. It is also one of the reasons why many Western academics, mainly Marxists and their close kin, "translate" the impulses leading to suicide bombers in terms of the secular theology they are familiar with, i.e. as a result of poverty and "oppression".
"Translating" motivations between "cultures", in this case I prefer the term "life worlds" (not quite the same thing, but probably more apropos in this instance), is always difficult, but it gets much harder when core areas of the two life worlds are radically different. For example, the Anglo Culture Complex has a cultural trait of what might be called "radical individualism" tempered, as the social level, by a belief in discussion and negotiation before violence. Part of this culture trait comes out of the Protestant concept of no one standing between an individual and God (although it's roots go back well before Christianity).
This can easily lead other cultural groups to view the Anglo Complex as "vacillating" or "endlessly talking and never doing", and that perception is usually formed by people in cultures which are more centrally oriented oriented in terms of symbolic authority (what Karl Polanyi called a Redistributive form of social organization: "things" flow into the centre and are distributed to everyone from the centre). This certainly seems to have been Hitler's perception of the West and, from what I have heard and seen, bin Laden's as well. This misunderstands how the Anglo Complex operates and leads many to drastically underestimate what members of the Anglo Complex will do in a situation where open conflict happens.
Marc
Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
Senior Research Fellow,
The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
Carleton University
http://marctyrrell.com/
Sarajevo, this was space and time well spent. You did a lot to help "the light go on" in my head about Dar es Islam. (Well, combined with reading like mad). Now, I will go and digest this information. Thank you.Now, I would like to thank you on all your responses, time and posts, and I wish to stop here… We made good arguments and points but I think we are talking to much space and time from others.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks