Right on. Why they are killing us.

[Pure]

July 13, 2005
Why Are They Killing Us?

by Patrick J. Buchanan

Who carried out the London massacre, we do not know. But, as to why they did it, we are already quarreling.

President Bush says that the terrorists are attacking our civilization. At Fort Bragg, N.C., he explained again why we are fighting in Iraq, two years after we overthrew Saddam Hussein. "Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war," he said, in "a global war on terror."

"Many terrorists who kill … on the streets of Baghdad are followers of the same murderous ideology that took the lives of citizens in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania. There is only one course of action against them: to defeat them abroad before they attack us at home."

Bush was echoed by Sen. John McCain. Those terrorists in Iraq, McCain told Larry King, "are the same guys who would be in New York if we don't win." We fight the terrorists over there so we do not have to fight them over here.

But is this true?

Few Americans have given more thought to the motivation of suicide bombers than Robert Pape, author of Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism. His book is drawn from an immense database on every suicide-bomb attack from 1980 to early 2004.

Conclusion: The claim that 9/11 and the suicide bombings in Iraq are done to advance some jihad by "Islamofascists" against the West is not only unsubstantiated, it is hollow.

[Pape:] "Islamic fundamentalism is not as closely associated with suicide terrorism as many people think," Pape tells The American Conservative in its July 18 issue. Indeed, the world's leader in suicide terror was the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka. This secular Marxist group "invented the famous suicide vest for their suicide assassination of Rajiv Ghandi in May 1991. The Palestinians got the idea of the vest from the Tamil Tigers."

But if the aim of suicide bombers is not to advance Islamism in a war of civilizations, what is its purpose? Pape's conclusion:

"uicide-terrorist attacks are not so much driven by religion as by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. From Lebanon to Sri Lanka to Chechnya to Kashmir to the West Bank, every major suicide terrorist campaign – over 95 percent of all incidents – has had as its central objective to compel a democratic state to withdraw."

The 9/11 terrorists were over here because we were over there. They are not trying to convert us. They are killing us to drive us out of their countries.

Before the U.S. invasion, says Pape,

"Iraq never had a suicide attack in its history. Since our invasion, suicide terrorism has been escalating rapidly, with 20 attacks in 2003, 48 in 2004 and over 50 in just the first five months of 2005. Every year since the U.S. invasion, suicide terrorism has doubled. … Far from making us safer against terrorism, the operation in Iraq has stimulated suicide terrorists and has given suicide terrorism a new lease on life."

Pape is saying that President Bush has got it backward: The Iraq war is not eradicating terrorism, it is creating terrorists.

The good news? "The history of the last 20 years" shows that once the troops of the occupying democracies "withdraw from the homeland of the terrorists, they often stop – and stop on a dime."

Between 1982 and 1986, there were 41 suicide-bomb attacks on U.S., French, and Israeli targets in Lebanon. When U.S. and French troops withdrew and Israel pulled back to a six-mile buffer zone, suicide bombings virtually ceased. When the Israelis left Lebanon, the Lebanese suicide bombers did not follow them to Tel Aviv.

"Since suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation and not Islamic fundamentalism," says Pape, "the use of heavy military force to transform Muslim societies … is only likely to increase the number of suicide terrorists coming at us."

What Pape is saying is that the neocons' "World War IV" – our invading Islamic countries to overthrow regimes and convert them into democracies – is suicidal, like stomping on an anthill so as not to be bitten by ants. It is the presence of U.S. troops in Islamic lands that is the progenitor of suicide terrorism.

Bush's cure for terrorism is a cause of the epidemic. The doctor is spreading the disease. The longer we stay in Iraq, the greater the number of suicide attacks we can expect. The sooner we get our troops out, the sooner terrorism over there and over here will end. So Pape says the data proves. This is the precise opposite of what George Bush argues and believes.

COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

July 13, 2005
Why Are They Killing Us?

by Patrick J. Buchanan

Who carried out the London massacre, we do not know. But, as to why they did it, we are already quarreling.

President Bush says that the terrorists are attacking our civilization. At Fort Bragg, N.C., he explained again why we are fighting in Iraq, two years after we overthrew Saddam Hussein. "Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war," he said, in "a global war on terror."

"Many terrorists who kill … on the streets of Baghdad are followers of the same murderous ideology that took the lives of citizens in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania. There is only one course of action against them: to defeat them abroad before they attack us at home."

Bush was echoed by Sen. John McCain. Those terrorists in Iraq, McCain told Larry King, "are the same guys who would be in New York if we don't win." We fight the terrorists over there so we do not have to fight them over here.

But is this true?

Few Americans have given more thought to the motivation of suicide bombers than Robert Pape, author of Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism. His book is drawn from an immense database on every suicide-bomb attack from 1980 to early 2004.

Conclusion: The claim that 9/11 and the suicide bombings in Iraq are done to advance some jihad by "Islamofascists" against the West is not only unsubstantiated, it is hollow.

[Pape:] "Islamic fundamentalism is not as closely associated with suicide terrorism as many people think," Pape tells The American Conservative in its July 18 issue. Indeed, the world's leader in suicide terror was the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka. This secular Marxist group "invented the famous suicide vest for their suicide assassination of Rajiv Ghandi in May 1991. The Palestinians got the idea of the vest from the Tamil Tigers."

But if the aim of suicide bombers is not to advance Islamism in a war of civilizations, what is its purpose? Pape's conclusion:

"uicide-terrorist attacks are not so much driven by religion as by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. From Lebanon to Sri Lanka to Chechnya to Kashmir to the West Bank, every major suicide terrorist campaign – over 95 percent of all incidents – has had as its central objective to compel a democratic state to withdraw."

The 9/11 terrorists were over here because we were over there. They are not trying to convert us. They are killing us to drive us out of their countries.

Before the U.S. invasion, says Pape,

"Iraq never had a suicide attack in its history. Since our invasion, suicide terrorism has been escalating rapidly, with 20 attacks in 2003, 48 in 2004 and over 50 in just the first five months of 2005. Every year since the U.S. invasion, suicide terrorism has doubled. … Far from making us safer against terrorism, the operation in Iraq has stimulated suicide terrorists and has given suicide terrorism a new lease on life."

Pape is saying that President Bush has got it backward: The Iraq war is not eradicating terrorism, it is creating terrorists.

The good news? "The history of the last 20 years" shows that once the troops of the occupying democracies "withdraw from the homeland of the terrorists, they often stop – and stop on a dime."

Between 1982 and 1986, there were 41 suicide-bomb attacks on U.S., French, and Israeli targets in Lebanon. When U.S. and French troops withdrew and Israel pulled back to a six-mile buffer zone, suicide bombings virtually ceased. When the Israelis left Lebanon, the Lebanese suicide bombers did not follow them to Tel Aviv.

"Since suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation and not Islamic fundamentalism," says Pape, "the use of heavy military force to transform Muslim societies … is only likely to increase the number of suicide terrorists coming at us."

What Pape is saying is that the neocons' "World War IV" – our invading Islamic countries to overthrow regimes and convert them into democracies – is suicidal, like stomping on an anthill so as not to be bitten by ants. It is the presence of U.S. troops in Islamic lands that is the progenitor of suicide terrorism.

Bush's cure for terrorism is a cause of the epidemic. The doctor is spreading the disease. The longer we stay in Iraq, the greater the number of suicide attacks we can expect. The sooner we get our troops out, the sooner terrorism over there and over here will end. So Pape says the data proves. This is the precise opposite of what George Bush argues and believes.

COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

This would appear to be a crock.

The Tamil Tigers may have come up with suisced vests, but suicide protest was practiced by Buddist monks duiring vietnam and suicide attacks with grenades was a staple of the rebellion in Cuba pre Castro and Chevara. Arguing who came up with it, isn't going to prove the assertion it isn't an identified tactic of islamacists, a point he seems to leave after explaing the origins of it. That' a fairly sophistic bait and switch.


"uicide-terrorist attacks are not so much driven by religion as by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. From Lebanon to Sri Lanka to Chechnya to Kashmir to the West Bank, every major suicide terrorist campaign – over 95 percent of all incidents – has had as its central objective to compel a democratic state to withdraw."

Hamaas ain't asking a democracy to withdraw, nor is islamic Jihad nor the Al aq-kaska martyrs brigades. Their stated goal is to destroy a democracy. Period. You are going to have a tough time convincing me their suicide attacks only account for the 5% that isn't aimed at getting a democracy to withdraw from someone's territory.

None of which seems to have significant bearing on the conclusion fighting them over there isn't keeping us from fighting them at home. Which seems to be his theme.

 

[Guest]

Erm... Petards? Were they not around in post-medieval times? Poor saps carrying barrels full of gunpowder and walking into gates and stone walls, not to mention the infantry lines of the enemy troops?

The Japanese, in WWII and before that? Ok, so a lot didn't volunteer, and were sealed into the cockpits of their planes, but they were still on "suicide bombing missions".

Anyway, yes, who "started it", with regard to this tactic in warfare, or otherwise, is beside the point. What is the point is what happens NOW and in the future.

 

[Liar]

Hamaas ain't asking a democracy to withdraw, nor is islamic Jihad nor the Al aq-kaska martyrs brigades. Their stated goal is to destroy a democracy. Period.

Not familiar with Al aq-kaska, but isn't Hamas' and Jihad's prime target Israel? A nation that, according to them, is an occupational force.

 

[oggbashan]

Assassins

The Assassins (actually Hassassins) started suicide attacks in the Middle Ages. They would send a killer to assassinate anyone they were paid to kill and the killer would commit suicide on completion of the mission.

The Assassins were a major influence in the Middle East because no one was safe from them. The money paid for the assassinations kept the rest of the Assassins in comfort while waiting for a mission.

The successful and dead assassin was promised those virgins in paradise.

The name Hassassin was supposed to be linked to the consumption of quantities of Hashish = Opium just before the execution of the kill so that the killer was spaced out of his mind.

Og

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Not familiar with Al aq-kaska, but isn't Hamas' and Jihad's prime target Israel? A nation that, according to them, is an occupational force.

Israel is a soverign state Liar. You can like it, you can dislike it, you can hate it, but it is an accomplished fact it's a soverign state, recognized by international law. They are also an occupation force in lands that are not part of the soverign state of Israel, it's true.

But Hammas's goal is not to get them out of the ocupied zones, it's goal is to drive Israel into the sea. It's not like they make any secret of it either.

Their goal is the destruction of a soverign democracy. In that reguard, they are far closer to GWB's position on terrorists than this author's. And I guarnetee they make up more than 5% of suicide bombers in the last twenty years.

 

[amicus]

"Cast a Giant Shadow" a rather dated fictional film about the birth of Israel might provide an emotional understanding of that nation.

In addition to John Wayne and Kirk Douglas, you also get to watch a very lovely dark haired lady whose name I cannot recall at the moment, but perhaps will search and find.

amicus...(atheist, not Jewish)

(http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060218/ Senta Berger was the girl)

 

[Liar]

Israel is a soverign state Liar. You can like it, you can dislike it, you can hate it, but it is an accomplished fact it's a soverign state, recognized by international law. They are also an occupation force in lands that are not part of the soverign state of Israel, it's true.

But Hammas's goal is not to get them out of the ocupied zones, it's goal is to drive Israel into the sea. It's not like they make any secret of it either.

Their goal is the destruction of a soverign democracy. In that reguard, they are far closer to GWB's position on terrorists than this author's. And I guarnetee they make up more than 5% of suicide bombers in the last twenty years.

Uh, you don't have to explain to me that Israel is a sovereign democracy, I'm fully aware of that, thank you.

That's not the point here. The point is: What is Israel to Hamas? To them the whole state of Israel is an ongoing occupation of their land. Taking back the occupied areas is the same as driving into the sea.

You can't use international law as a divider when defining actions of people who doesn't recognize it. They see Israel as an institutionalized occupation, in their eyes disguised as the mockery of sovereign state, armed and supported by the west (which by proxy makes the west the enemy, naturally).

There is no difference in that regard between Hamas and Jihad in Israel, insurgents in Iraq, rebels in Chechnya and so on. They have the same perspective. The fact that we don't share their world view and core values which make those situations equal is a moot point.

 

[Pure]

amazing how most posters ignore the central points and get into tangents like Japanese history.

1)The "islamic terrorists" or 'fundamentalists" --particularly suicide bombers--have goals that are not so much:
"we hate democracy" "we hate the American way of life,"

nor even, 'we wish to glorify Allah, smite the heathen, and go to paradise'

2)There is a primary or 'core' political goal of ending Western 'occupation' and hegemony, evidenced in bases etc.

3)a) Hence the US policy of military invasion, occupation of alleged 'terrorist sponsoring states' is like 'stepping on an ant hill'.

b) It provides fuel and recruits to the 'Islamic terrorist' (jihadi) cause; also it disperses the sources of terrorists and terrorism. (E.g., Britain is now a source of terrorists)

4) It does NOT, in an effective way, 'take the fight to them' so we don't fight them here (in US). It may detract from our fighting them 'here.'

5) One might add that the evident lack of success or long term 'quagmiring' of US forces has a number of other ill effects (besides creating embarrassment, an impression of stupidity; difficulties for pro US Islamic countries like Turkey), e.g., the national guard isn't home available for what it was intended for.

====
I believe all these points are if not valid, at least arguable. Indeed, right and left analysts have been making them for some time. I might add that points 1) and 2) are borrowed by Buchanan from Pape's book, which is--I believe--not particularly aligned with 'right' or 'left' causes.

I should like to hear arguments and evidence against any of the above points, and yes Down with Japanese fascists, and Protect Israel in a Just Peace, etc.

 

[amicus]

Pure..you appear to me to be constantly and consistently opposed to US actions in foreign policy.

Anytime any one person or nation makes a statement or takes an action, there will be those who agree and those who disagree and those who vacillate.

It also appears to me, after reading many, many of your comments, that your overall position seems to be one of isolationism. Is that a correct assessment?

If not, then beginning with the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, (forget prior national associations) what would your preferred course of action have been?

amicus

 

[NoJo]

The awful, sick truth is probably that in order to maintain the level of affluence we have, The US/UK needs to keep control over Middle East oil. So a few hundred deaths in New York and London are just part of the price to pay for iPods and whatnot.

It's a bit galling to those of us who don't give a fuck about iPods.

 

[elsol]

The awful, sick truth is probably that in order to maintain the level of affluence we have, The US/UK needs to keep control over Middle East oil. So a few hundred deaths in New York and London are just part of the price to pay for iPods and whatnot.

It's a bit galling to those of us who don't give a fuck about iPods.

I think the iPod thing is an exxageration.

SUV's definititely... and even my Turbo-Bug.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[elsol]

Pure..you appear to me to be constantly and consistently opposed to US actions in foreign policy.

Anytime any one person or nation makes a statement or takes an action, there will be those who agree and those who disagree and those who vacillate.

It also appears to me, after reading many, many of your comments, that your overall position seems to be one of isolationism. Is that a correct assessment?

If not, then beginning with the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, (forget prior national associations) what would your preferred course of action have been?

amicus

Get Saddam the first time around.

Bush I screwed the pooch by not pushing for it... it should have been a part of the package.

"You either let us go after Saddam, or you're on your own."

And Pure isn't an isolationist, I know those 'cause I'm one of them. Pure doesn't have the rabid xenophobia required.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[oggbashan]

The awful, sick truth is probably that in order to maintain the level of affluence we have, The US/UK needs to keep control over Middle East oil. So a few hundred deaths in New York and London are just part of the price to pay for iPods and whatnot.

It's a bit galling to those of us who don't give a fuck about iPods.

However we in the UK are now paying four pounds an Imperial gallon for petrol (gas) and all businesses are paying a tax to subsidise renewable sources of energy.

The UK has signed up to reducing carbon emissions, to recycling much more of our waste and to seeking to replace many of our oil and gas-fired electrical power stations with sustainable energy sources.

What will the US do when the oil runs out?

Og

 

[The_Fool]

What will the US do when the oil runs out?

Og

That's a damn good question.....

Lots of posturing, but I don't think anyone has an answer. I think it's ostrich time.

 

[amicus]

Elsol...I am not a fan of either Bush, both wimps as far as I am concerned and neither very well spoken.

However...in order to maintain the coalition and keep Israel at bay, the coalition was limited by the United Nations resolutions to just expelling the Iraqi's from Kuwait.

But I suspect you know that.


Thus, as an isolationist...then what?

amicus...

 

[Liar]

What will the US do when the oil runs out?

Run after and drag it back in?

Apologies, I just had my thirg king size mug of coffee for the night.

 

[elsol]

Elsol...I am not a fan of either Bush, both wimps as far as I am concerned and neither very well spoken.

However...in order to maintain the coalition and keep Israel at bay, the coalition was limited by the United Nations resolutions to just expelling the Iraqi's from Kuwait.

But I suspect you know that.


Thus, as an isolationist...then what?

amicus...

Sorry... you mistook my phrasing... I'm worse than an isolationist, I'm rabidly xenophobic.

I would said.

"Saddam or you do it on your own... oh look, he's massing troops on the border of Saudi Arabia. You know we can just as easily buy oil from Saddam as the Sheik of whatever/whatever."

The difference being I'm willing to wait until the situation is unquestionably FUCKED-UP regardless of the body count as long as I get to do it my way.

ps. I would have quiesced the Israelis with an 'aggression' treaty so tight that Saddam or anybody even LOOKING in their direction would get planted.

Nobody needs to explain the terrorists to me, I always understood them perfectly 'cause I'm just like them if not worse.


Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[SeaCat]

This whole thing is scary. Yes it's important to know why they are attacking us but isn't it more imprtant to find out how to stop them?

President Bush said:
"Many terrorists who kill...on the streets of Baghdad are followers of the same murderouse idealogy that took the lives of citizens in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania."
What idealogy? They claim to be Islamic yet they are going against their own religeos teachings. Or is their idealogy just plain terror? And how are the bombers in Irag connected to New York, Washington and Pennsylvania? (Other thantheir hatred of America?)

Now, the attacks in London. How are they connected to the war in Iraq? All I have heard are vague comments about the people in these attacks being possibly affiliated with Al-Quada. (They haven't been able to question anyone about this yet now have they?) This sounds a lot like the Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq to me. Who, other than a report on the internet can say this was in fact connected with the war and not the disturbances in Ireland? Or some one else upset at British policy for that matter?

What scares me more than the attacks themselves are the reactions we are seeing. The increased drive for national identification both here in America and in Britain. The increased intrusive searches on the subways in both countries. The hype on the news over here in America over both bombings in England as well as the people who advocate the internment and otherwise removing the rights of Arabs around the world becoming more vocal. (Yes I do understand people died in the bombings. Their lives can't be returned by persecuting people nor are their deaths made more palatable by the terrorising of certain groups of people.)

How do we stop the terrorism? I don't know, but I do know it isn't by making our countries and armed camp with the guns looking both outside our borders as well as inside. It isn't by ostracising or persecuting parts of our citizenship.

Cat

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Uh, you don't have to explain to me that Israel is a sovereign democracy, I'm fully aware of that, thank you.

That's not the point here. The point is: What is Israel to Hamas? To them the whole state of Israel is an ongoing occupation of their land. Taking back the occupied areas is the same as driving into the sea.

You can't use international law as a divider when defining actions of people who doesn't recognize it. They see Israel as an institutionalized occupation, in their eyes disguised as the mockery of sovereign state, armed and supported by the west (which by proxy makes the west the enemy, naturally).

There is no difference in that regard between Hamas and Jihad in Israel, insurgents in Iraq, rebels in Chechnya and so on. They have the same perspective. The fact that we don't share their world view and core values which make those situations equal is a moot point.

No, I wasn't trying to dispute Hammas thinks of Israel as occupiers. That is not, however, the situation as recognized by most soverign states and by the majority of the international comunity. For the author, to adopt hamaas's view and present it as the accompished fact, rather than jewish soverignty as the accomplished fact, tends to make me believe the work has no merit.

If the definitions are that malleable to the author, then the results are basically, whatever he wishes them to be. Nice for a political expression, but not valid as a study.

 

[Pure]

Hi Colly,
I don't want to re-hash Israel vs. the Arabs with you. I think Israel has a right to exist.

Though you label the article a crock, I've seen nothing of substance from you on what I take to be its main points (posted).

If I had to put it in a sentence, the central thesis is that the war in Iraq is not 'preventing [the US] having to fight them at home', nor generally furthering the 'war on terror' (so called); indeed, it's likely providing incentive and spur to recruiting of terrorists; that, mainly because of the 'occupying' presence of US troops (providing fresh pictures of dead Iraqi women and babies, etc.).

To ami,
I would not exactly say I'm 'isolationist,' I simply want 1) very clear involvement of US 'interests' and evidence that they are harmed if nothing is done; and
2) clear evidence of the necessity [no other way] AND the efficacy of the foreign intervention (efficacy being defined as promoting US interests more than non intervention).

All of the criteria were met vis a vis the nazis, none are met with the present Iraq adventure.

It's not up to me to re-fight the last 20 years mideast wars or give a prescription for 'mideast peace' after you guys have fueled wars for decades. Since your guys (US Repubs and many Dems) have sacrificed a couple thousand 'allied' lives and maybe 20,000 Iraqi ones, and are spending a billion a month, i'd say the burden is on you to justify the adventure. (Note that Saddam was, at least at one time, quite happy to sell oil to the US at a reasonable price; that is why criterion 1) is not satisfied.)

Ami you haven't yet said how you'd get Black Slaves of the South [1850s] any rights without use of Federal power and even troops; nor get Blacks a vote, in the 1960s when various means (intimidation, literacy tests, etc.) were being used to prevent their voting. Do tell us how your committment to 'liberty' is evidenced where others' liberties are severely curtailed, esp. given your devotion to 'private property.'

 

[Liar]

No, I wasn't trying to dispute Hammas thinks of Israel as occupiers. That is not, however, the situation as recognized by most soverign states and by the majority of the international comunity. For the author, to adopt hamaas's view and present it as the accompished fact, rather than jewish soverignty as the accomplished fact, tends to make me believe the work has no merit.

If the definitions are that malleable to the author, then the results are basically, whatever he wishes them to be. Nice for a political expression, but not valid as a study.

I have to disagree. It's exactly because he makes that perspective shift, take on the glasses of the enemy and see what they see, that the article becomes interresting. This is all about how things are precieved from another side's point of view. It's empathy, not sympathy.

Hamas IS fighting an occupation, wether we agree or not. Just like Don Quixote was fighting monsters. Wether they in reality are real occupations and monsters, or sovereign democracies and windmills is totally beside the point. The motivation of the one doing the fighting will remain the same. And it's how our actions are precieved, rather than the actions themselves, that causes a reaction.

We may be the heroes of the milennia, saving Iraq from a terrible dictator, bringing the glory of democracy to the middle east. In fact, other than the fact that the operation might have been planned and executed better, I think we are. A substancial amount of people there don't see it that way, though. They see an invading, alien force. (Partly due to our poor planning and execution, I suspect.) They may be mistaken, but that doesn't stop them from attacking the windmills, does it?

#L

 

[CharleyH]

July 13, 2005
Why Are They Killing Us?

by Patrick J. Buchanan

Who carried out the London massacre, we do not know. But, as to why they did it, we are already quarreling.

President Bush says that the terrorists are attacking our civilization. At Fort Bragg, N.C., he explained again why we are fighting in Iraq, two years after we overthrew Saddam Hussein. "Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war," he said, in "a global war on terror."

"Many terrorists who kill … on the streets of Baghdad are followers of the same murderous ideology that took the lives of citizens in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania. There is only one course of action against them: to defeat them abroad before they attack us at home."

Bush was echoed by Sen. John McCain. Those terrorists in Iraq, McCain told Larry King, "are the same guys who would be in New York if we don't win." We fight the terrorists over there so we do not have to fight them over here.

But is this true?

Few Americans have given more thought to the motivation of suicide bombers than Robert Pape, author of Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism. His book is drawn from an immense database on every suicide-bomb attack from 1980 to early 2004.

Conclusion: The claim that 9/11 and the suicide bombings in Iraq are done to advance some jihad by "Islamofascists" against the West is not only unsubstantiated, it is hollow.

[Pape:] "Islamic fundamentalism is not as closely associated with suicide terrorism as many people think," Pape tells The American Conservative in its July 18 issue. Indeed, the world's leader in suicide terror was the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka. This secular Marxist group "invented the famous suicide vest for their suicide assassination of Rajiv Ghandi in May 1991. The Palestinians got the idea of the vest from the Tamil Tigers."

But if the aim of suicide bombers is not to advance Islamism in a war of civilizations, what is its purpose? Pape's conclusion:

"uicide-terrorist attacks are not so much driven by religion as by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. From Lebanon to Sri Lanka to Chechnya to Kashmir to the West Bank, every major suicide terrorist campaign – over 95 percent of all incidents – has had as its central objective to compel a democratic state to withdraw."

The 9/11 terrorists were over here because we were over there. They are not trying to convert us. They are killing us to drive us out of their countries.

Before the U.S. invasion, says Pape,

"Iraq never had a suicide attack in its history. Since our invasion, suicide terrorism has been escalating rapidly, with 20 attacks in 2003, 48 in 2004 and over 50 in just the first five months of 2005. Every year since the U.S. invasion, suicide terrorism has doubled. … Far from making us safer against terrorism, the operation in Iraq has stimulated suicide terrorists and has given suicide terrorism a new lease on life."

Pape is saying that President Bush has got it backward: The Iraq war is not eradicating terrorism, it is creating terrorists.

The good news? "The history of the last 20 years" shows that once the troops of the occupying democracies "withdraw from the homeland of the terrorists, they often stop – and stop on a dime."

Between 1982 and 1986, there were 41 suicide-bomb attacks on U.S., French, and Israeli targets in Lebanon. When U.S. and French troops withdrew and Israel pulled back to a six-mile buffer zone, suicide bombings virtually ceased. When the Israelis left Lebanon, the Lebanese suicide bombers did not follow them to Tel Aviv.

"Since suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation and not Islamic fundamentalism," says Pape, "the use of heavy military force to transform Muslim societies … is only likely to increase the number of suicide terrorists coming at us."

What Pape is saying is that the neocons' "World War IV" – our invading Islamic countries to overthrow regimes and convert them into democracies – is suicidal, like stomping on an anthill so as not to be bitten by ants. It is the presence of U.S. troops in Islamic lands that is the progenitor of suicide terrorism.

Bush's cure for terrorism is a cause of the epidemic. The doctor is spreading the disease. The longer we stay in Iraq, the greater the number of suicide attacks we can expect. The sooner we get our troops out, the sooner terrorism over there and over here will end. So Pape says the data proves. This is the precise opposite of what George Bush argues and believes.

COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

So - what exactly is Bush or Blair doing?

Intersesting article.

How we look, and never actually see what happens around us.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Hi Colly,
I don't want to re-hash Israel vs. the Arabs with you. I think Israel has a right to exist.

Though you label the article a crock, I've seen nothing of substance from you on what I take to be its main points (posted).

If I had to put it in a sentence, the central thesis is that the war in Iraq is not 'preventing [the US] having to fight them at home', nor generally furthering the 'war on terror' (so called); indeed, it's likely providing incentive and spur to recruiting of terrorists; that, mainly because of the 'occupying' presence of US troops (providing fresh pictures of dead Iraqi women and babies, etc.).

To ami,
I would not exactly say I'm 'isolationist,' I simply want 1) very clear involvement of US 'interests' and evidence that they are harmed if nothing is done; and
2) clear evidence of the necessity [no other way] AND the efficacy of the foreign intervention (efficacy being defined as promoting US interests more than non intervention).

All of the criteria were met vis a vis the nazis, none are met with the present Iraq adventure.

It's not up to me to re-fight the last 20 years mideast wars or give a prescription for 'mideast peace' after you guys have fueled wars for decades. Since your guys (US Repubs and many Dems) have sacrificed a couple thousand 'allied' lives and maybe 20,000 Iraqi ones, and are spending a billion a month, i'd say the burden is on you to justify the adventure. (Note that Saddam was, at least at one time, quite happy to sell oil to the US at a reasonable price; that is why criterion 1) is not satisfied.)

Ami you haven't yet said how you'd get Black Slaves of the South [1850s] any rights without use of Federal power and even troops; nor get Blacks a vote, in the 1960s when various means (intimidation, literacy tests, etc.) were being used to prevent their voting. Do tell us how your committment to 'liberty' is evidenced where others' liberties are severely curtailed, esp. given your devotion to 'private property.'

J,

GWB probably slacked his way through his Guard duty because of his family. His Co may even have felt pressure to give him a free ride. But an expose with falsified or at least unverifiable documents didn't do anything to prove the point.

In the exact same vein, it's quite likely the point the author wishes to make is valid. His study, however, does jack to prove that, if he takes the frame of reference and bends it to the point where the words and facts he presents have no meaning.

If pointing that out pisses you guys off, Im sorry. Just because he believes it, dosen't make it any more proveable and twisting perspective to be agble to give rediculously hiugh percentages does nothing to give the author credibility, unless you just want to belive what he is saying, in which case you don't even need his puported evidence to begin with.

The central point is an assertion. The proof of that assertion isn't provided. That makes it nothing more than an op/ed piece. At least that's how I see it.

My own op/ed I guess.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I have to disagree. It's exactly because he makes that perspective shift, take on the glasses of the enemy and see what they see, that the article becomes interresting. This is all about how things are precieved from another side's point of view. It's empathy, not sympathy.

Hamas IS fighting an occupation, wether we agree or not. Just like Don Quixote was fighting monsters. Wether they in reality are real occupations and monsters, or sovereign democracies and windmills is totally beside the point. The motivation of the one doing the fighting will remain the same. And it's how our actions are precieved, rather than the actions themselves, that causes a reaction.

We may be the heroes of the milennia, saving Iraq from a terrible dictator, bringing the glory of democracy to the middle east. In fact, other than the fact that the operation might have been planned and executed better, I think we are. A substancial amount of people there don't see it that way, though. They see an invading, alien force. (Partly due to our poor planning and execution, I suspect.) They may be mistaken, but that doesn't stop them from attacking the windmills, does it?

#L

Ya know Liar, a study was once commisioned by the beef industry to dispute claims eating beef was bad for you.

I bet if I presented it with the cow's perspective as my base line it would have come up proving it. That don't make it so and if I choose to present it from the cows perspective, it has very little relevance to the target audience does it?

If you want to present it to Hammas, then you could legitimately take their perspective. It isn't the perspective of the free world and that's who the article is aimed at. Like my cows example, it has litle relevance if you shift the paradigm to the perspective of the terrorists and present that as your factual basis.

You are welcome to present their view, but you are not allowed to take their view and use it as the baseline for your factual doument study. That isn't good methodology. And if your methodology has to be that shoddy to get your point across, the odds favor your point not being proveable.