What about the Kamikaze?

"A Japanese pilot trained in World War II to make a suicidal crash attack, especially upon a ship."

"...has had as its central objective to compel a democratic state to withdraw."

A democratic state to withdraw..? Has nothing to do with the politics of the situation, but rather the resolve in defeating the enemy. To purposely give one's life to defeat the enemy -- is a Kamikaze.

What I'm saying is that, it is completely irrelevant that the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka are Marxist. Suicide bombing and politics are not in any way connected.

I think the author is making a false association. You allude to that when you say: "It’s the occupation, not the...

What about the Kamikaze?

"A Japanese pilot trained in World War II to make a suicidal crash attack, especially upon a ship."

"...has had as its central objective to compel a democratic state to withdraw."

A democratic state to withdraw..? Has nothing to do with the politics of the situation, but rather the resolve in defeating the enemy. To purposely give one's life to defeat the enemy -- is a Kamikaze.

What I'm saying is that, it is completely irrelevant that the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka are Marxist. Suicide bombing and politics are not in any way connected.

I think the author is making a false association. You allude to that when you say: "It’s the occupation, not the fundamentalism.."

It's a desperate act, cloaked in honor. But with religious types it could very well be fundamental. I hear some think it's a shortcut to heaven.

"His conclusions are based on a study of what the terrorists themselves say..."

"Most say explicitly that they are trying to end an occupation."

Don't you find it interesting that the "terrorists" are defined as the ones defending against an occupation?

I'm just saying, I think the author is making a false association. People fighting against "a democratic state" are not inherently terrorists.

Bombing a country, for example, that did not attack you, would be an inherently terrorist act. But do we call America a terrorists state?

We did a lot of that during Reagan, in South America. We literally terrorized. Yet the author is calling the "defenders" t...

"His conclusions are based on a study of what the terrorists themselves say..."

"Most say explicitly that they are trying to end an occupation."

Don't you find it interesting that the "terrorists" are defined as the ones defending against an occupation?

I'm just saying, I think the author is making a false association. People fighting against "a democratic state" are not inherently terrorists.

Bombing a country, for example, that did not attack you, would be an inherently terrorist act. But do we call America a terrorists state?

We did a lot of that during Reagan, in South America. We literally terrorized. Yet the author is calling the "defenders" the terrorists because the aggressors represent a democratic state. (False association)

The fine point that distinguishes, however, is the act of suicide during the kill. And that, in my humble opinion, takes an act of desperation.

It may be buoyed by religion, but I hardly think the winning side is going to kill themselves when they're already winning.

(Mind you, I don't disagree with you. I just think the author is biased in characterizing the "who" as terrorist, in relationship to politics.)

Would not it be fair to say that while suicide bombing might be secular and largely strategic in conception, that the fundamental act of commiting to suicide bombing of sending people into suicide bombing requires a degree of ritualization and even religiousization?

Consider the significant writings out on the martyrdom cemetaries and their near-cannonization in Sri Lanka, or in Kashmir - When one joins the Tamil Tigers certain commitments are made to the cause, and regardless of its alleged marxist secularism, it still creates certain dogmas about the existance and experience of the individual (the struggle against Sinhala oppressors, the totalization of an individual life into a political...

Would not it be fair to say that while suicide bombing might be secular and largely strategic in conception, that the fundamental act of commiting to suicide bombing of sending people into suicide bombing requires a degree of ritualization and even religiousization?

Consider the significant writings out on the martyrdom cemetaries and their near-cannonization in Sri Lanka, or in Kashmir - When one joins the Tamil Tigers certain commitments are made to the cause, and regardless of its alleged marxist secularism, it still creates certain dogmas about the existance and experience of the individual (the struggle against Sinhala oppressors, the totalization of an individual life into a political tool, the complete sacrifice of ones right to live to the cause of Tamil liberation).

Beyond such near-religious experience for the individual also consider that while suicide bombers may be tools, something must convince them to commit to that cause, and to justify giving up ones life. Religion seems like an ample source for such rationalizing or justifying. For example the glorification of religious martyrdom could serve as an analogy to political causes.

But even in these strategies does this compel a democracy to withdraw, thats where I think this article flops. Kashmiri elections have been continuous frauds and I suspect that if the people there had a real chance to vote even the staunchest Hindu would advocate less inflamatory policies towards Muslims (lets face it they're the ones who get blown up or killed more often than bureaucrats in Dilli). To call Sri Lankan elections--notoriously rife with fraud, corruption, government led or condoned violence--democratic might also be a serious stretch. Let's face it these states are democratic in name but not practice.

the fundamental act of commiting to suicide bombing of sending people into suicide bombing requires a degree of ritualization and even religiousization?

To the extent that it requires a degree of fanaticism, "yes". I called it a certain degree of desperation, but I suppose any rallying point of extreme emotion (or commitment) such as religion, would do.

The Kamikaze were not religious oriented (that I'm aware of) but rather Nationalistic.

My central point was that none of it has to do with a social economic basis. The author was attempting to link suicide bombing with Marxism vs a democratic state. The author is attempting to forge false associations.

"For example...

read more»

the fundamental act of commiting to suicide bombing of sending people into suicide bombing requires a degree of ritualization and even religiousization?

To the extent that it requires a degree of fanaticism, "yes". I called it a certain degree of desperation, but I suppose any rallying point of extreme emotion (or commitment) such as religion, would do.

The Kamikaze were not religious oriented (that I'm aware of) but rather Nationalistic.

My central point was that none of it has to do with a social economic basis. The author was attempting to link suicide bombing with Marxism vs a democratic state. The author is attempting to forge false associations.

"For example the glorification of religious martyrdom could serve as an analogy to political causes."

Right. ANY rallying point of extreme emotion (or commitment) such as religion, or nationalism or (fill in the blank here) might work.

But I highly doubt anyone would commit to suicide bombing because they're a Republican, or a millionaire!

For Nationalism, maybe.
Capitalism? I doubt it.

Suicide bombing is not a social economic event. To link it to Marxism is disingenuous.

That governments are corrupt? Of course.

1. on Kamikaze

I have to interject, the use of Kamikaze here is a bit too loose for my tastes.In Japanese Kami Kaze (神風) means wind of the spirits or gods. In shinto nationalist Japan where indigenous religions were reorganized around the emperor and incorporated into a general nationalist movement, it is no coincidence that this word became the term for suicide bombers who did it not just for the nation but for the cosmos it was linked to. This was unquestionably religious, and almost any Japanese person can agree to that. This is also one of the key points as to why there appears to be much apathy towards religion in modern Japan. When the nation was totalized to a religious cause and the...

1. on Kamikaze

I have to interject, the use of Kamikaze here is a bit too loose for my tastes.In Japanese Kami Kaze (神風) means wind of the spirits or gods. In shinto nationalist Japan where indigenous religions were reorganized around the emperor and incorporated into a general nationalist movement, it is no coincidence that this word became the term for suicide bombers who did it not just for the nation but for the cosmos it was linked to. This was unquestionably religious, and almost any Japanese person can agree to that. This is also one of the key points as to why there appears to be much apathy towards religion in modern Japan. When the nation was totalized to a religious cause and they were defeated then religious rationals and belief took a hit.

2. Marxism and Suicide bombing

I actually think Aces and I agree to a certain extent, but let me clarify, I agree that suicide bombing can't be economic on the level of the individual. Even if an organization may see it that way.

3. To Ray's comment

I worry over the analysis that they blow themselves up just because. When we accept that blowing yourself up is normal for "those" people to say "get off my land," i think we run a really big risk not only of dehumanizing them (what human being would blow themselves up to protect land?) But we also overlook the reality that the Suicide bomber faces..like to return this to the original article and my problem with it - Tamil Tigers draw from various RELIGOUS populations to be part of thier "Secular" organization. Their recruits are not atheists but made athiests in training. My point is that in this training religion is not actually destroyed but rather replaced by a new "pseudo" religion in which Tamil Martyrdom is one facet. I think their training is analogous to a religious convertion. Moreover this merits not economic understandings but religious understandings as well. Thats where I disagree with Ray and the article. But thats just my take

First, what use to apply logic to evil?
Next, who cares who invented the suicide vest. Those who know the truth know the ideology behind the majority of TODAY'S terrorist attacks--suicide or otherwise. Quasi-intellectual "progressives" can pretend there is logic to any of their deeds and that there is any other solution than eliminating them.
Jordan and Syria contain most of the Palestinians homeland.They refused it when offered it. Israel is in its own ancient homeland.Palestinian evil terrorists and murders need to be eliminated and Israel cannot do it because there are too many coward in the world today who will not stand up for what is right especially with the international prejudice a...

First, what use to apply logic to evil?
Next, who cares who invented the suicide vest. Those who know the truth know the ideology behind the majority of TODAY'S terrorist attacks--suicide or otherwise. Quasi-intellectual "progressives" can pretend there is logic to any of their deeds and that there is any other solution than eliminating them.
Jordan and Syria contain most of the Palestinians homeland.They refused it when offered it. Israel is in its own ancient homeland.Palestinian evil terrorists and murders need to be eliminated and Israel cannot do it because there are too many coward in the world today who will not stand up for what is right especially with the international prejudice against Israel. Curious how the biggest haters of Israel are the "enlightened" ones. BullShit. Wear a uniform , declare who you are and what you fight for , quit hiding behind kids and old ladies. Or else move! F****ng Cowards!
The biggest reason for terrorism is a sense of victimhood. And the in-vogue approach is touchy-feely: "Oh you're being occupied? Oh you poor things. That you are resorting to murder must mean you are for real. I'm with you. You go,victim!! How many of these so called "occupations" are really that?