On RN this morning Fran Kelly interviewed Robert Pape who has compiled a report on suicide bombers http://www.abc.net.au/rn/breakfast/stories/2006/1727673.htm. They're not motivated by religion, it's a facilitator only. His proof? After studying terrorism between 1980 and 2004 he's found that the leading proponents of suicide bombing are the Tamil Tigers, a Marxist secular group in Sri Lanka who invented the famous suicide vest for their assination of Rajiv Ghandi.

He says in this interview http://www.amconmag.com/2005_07_18/article.html that "The central fact is that overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland."

He tells Fran that the best way to stop suicide bombing is to withdraw troops from occupied countries (although in the case of Iraq he suggests a covert strategy).

What he says resonates with what I know about how electors make domestic policy decisions, so I'm interested to read more.

His book Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Terrorism is published by Scribe. We also recently published an article by Jeremy Sharon, Reporting War http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4779 where he drew attention to his claim that international reporting agencies concentrate too much on middle-eastern terrorism, ignoring other places like Sri Lanka.

Those among the Palestinians and Iraqis are without the slightest ambiguity doing it for religious reasons.

An interview with Jill Carroll who was kidnapped by Iraqi insurgents (shown on CNN this morning) makes this crystal clear. Her account included the following:

-Everything done by the insurgents was based on their religious views
-A 5 yr old boy in the family was living for the day when he could be a mujahadin.
-The wife of her captors who was 4 months pregnant blushingly confessed to planning to be a suicide bomber at the urging of her husband.
-She outlined how the WHOLE family network were all intimately involved with the terrorism, including wives, children and relatives.

In fact, it was the clearest case I've seen for some time for the justification (at least in strategic terms) of the total elimination of whole families and communities.
Her account is chilling, though it would not bode well with our lefty's or our western sense of justice, due process and law.
The simple fact of the matter is, our concepts of due process are totally unworkable in such a situation.
We either consign ourselves to a Vietnam like quagmire that we never understand, or treat the cancer with the most potent drug available to root out the malignancy. Perhaps they should employ Sadaam as a consultant ?

Yes.. humanly speaking, things could become VERY ugly, and unpalatable. But if the choice is 'unpalatable, ugly victory' or 'naive and ultimate defeat', the military has a stark choice to make.

For me, the solution is to attack the root of the problem, which goes right to the heart of the religion and its prophet and once this is dealt with, the rest will collapse. I prefer the battle of ideas than bullets, because no matter how many we kill, if the idea still lives, so will the problem.

I hope this gives some insight as to why I am continually focused on the religion of Islam and the nature of its prophet, in the hope of educating many of us as to the real threat.

Dear Boaz, you're making a classic mistake here - you're taking one particular account, by one particular participant, out of context, and then generalising from it.

What interests me in Pape's work is that he gets all the data together and then draws conclusions.

Some problems with your analysis - if Islam is the root problem, rather than being a facilitator, why are secular suicide bombers more prevalent than religious ones?

And even if one were to accept that Islam encourages violence, why is it being effective at this very moment, rather than say 40 years ago?

I should also say that I don't know enough about the Pape thesis to be a disciple of it, but it does raise some good questions. And I am uncomfortable with explanations of events which put the blame on only one factor - in this case religion.

I'm also familiar with Robert Pape's assertions and, given the depth and range of his research, inclined to agree with him.

He has profiled hundreds of suicide bombers over several years.

According to documented eyewitness reports, the 911 terrorists were seen drinking and partying at strip clubs in the nights before the hijacks - hardly the actions of stereotypical devout Muslim fanatics.

Likewise, the alleged perpetrators of the London bombing were believed to be motivated by political rather than religious principles.

I think most suicide bombers act out of vengeance for what they feel are past atrocities carried out against them or their friends and families.

Of course, some religious zealots (on both sides) will try to hijack this fervour to give themselves legitimacy as well as making the senseless appear sensible.

This conflict is first and foremost a political struggle that is invoking God to justify itself.

Graham
I'm not generalizing, I'm simply making the point that in the particular conflicts I mentioned... (any Islamic insurgency/terrorist group) the motivation is fundamentally religious. Perhaps I could say 'politically motivated, based on a religious understanding'.

Other conflicts, such as Sri Lanka..indeed have different dimensions and I do not claim that they are motivated by religion, and this accords with Papes thesis. (though some might be.. I don't know enough about the Tamil Tigers and each bomber to comment.

The problem I see with his contention is "he" is trying to remove the religious element of 'some' conflicts/suicide bombings by using statistics to claim 'most' are based on political motives.
I agree.. statistically, based on his research..

But he is misinformed if he tries to extrapolate that to Islamic suicide bombers.

So..in summary.

1/ "Most" suicide bombings are carried out for political purposes.
2/ Islamic related bombings are usually for religious/political reasons.

The Islamic ones are indeed within a framework of political discontent, but that discontent is itself based on the technical theological concept of 'Islamic Lands' and Jihad.

Most conflicts can be understood in geo-political terms. The Middle East/Israel/Palestine...is unique and can only be properly understood in geo-political-theological terms in my view.

It would be interesting to know what Robert Papes’ definition of ‘leading proponents’ is?
Measured by number of attacks, or casualties caused, it is my judgment that the leading proponents of sb would be Islamic extremists

Further, sb can be seen as a variance on suicide attacks (in other forms)favoured by Islam ( & other groups ) since earliest days, egged on by promises of rewards in heaven.

The apologist’s excuse that it is related to occupation by foreign troops is nonsense:The same groups who rail against foreign military personnel in Saudi also seek to expel all non-Moslem civilians from the Saudi peninsula (as previous was the case in early Islamic times).
And sb in such places as Indonesia ,Egypt & Pakistan is often directed at a disadvantaged minorities.