Iraqi militants strapped explosive belts onto two mentally disabled women last week, sent them into two crowded Baghdad markets and blew them up. Authorities said the two women had Down syndrome and may not have understood what they were about to do. Their belts were detonated remotely, 20 minutes apart, killing dozens.
Neither the Islamic nor the Western worlds have come to grips with acts of such evil. Media accounts of the attacks focused on the sense of shock felt by Baghdad residents who had come to believe that security was improving. Destroying that sense of progress and trust in the Iraqi and U.S. governments was doubtless the terrorists’ goal. Equally horrifying, however, is what did not follow the barbarity in Baghdad: no outpouring of disgust from the Muslim world.
What does this moral numbness mean? It appears to signify that terrorists have succeeded in forcing the public to view suicide bombing as an inevitable, unstoppable, even ordinary tactic of warfare. In truth, because the technique has proved so spectacularly successful at instilling chaos and despair — and because it is so cheap and difficult to deter — it has metastasized to societies that had never heard of such horrors before. Suicide bombings have now occurred in more than 30 countries. The traditional rationale — that suicide terrorism is the last resort of an occupied people against a far more powerful oppressor — no longer holds true. Everywhere, suicide terrorism has thwarted traditional military and counter-terrorist solutions.
What I noticed most about the incident was the way in which NPR reports treated it as an ordinary bombing — with not one word about the use of retarded women, which on two levels is the essence of the story. First, the utter depravity of it all. Second, its indication that AQI is having great difficulty recruiting bombers any more.
But each of those points supports the Bush administration, and we couldn’t have that, now, could we?
Read the Quran. The ONLY way to be assured of entrance to Paradise is to give one’s life fighting for Islam. Strapping on a bomb and blowing up oneself and as many others as possible gives one a “Go Directly To Paradise” card and strikes a blow for the One True Faith.
We are engaged in a war with a faith that believes that violence is not only acceptable but is commanded when necessary to advance Islam, and the ultimate goal of Islam is to create an Islamic world. Islamic “terrorists” are not the “lunatic fringe;” they are committed and faithful Muslims who are following the commands of the Quran. That is why Islamic governments will not speak out against such acts of violence. To do so is to oppose the teaching of the Quran.
The evidence is that we are fighting an evil semi-state. To ignore the problem or to suggest living with it is complicit to its goals and means. There is much evil in the world and their is much evil in the West.
Are there suicide murderers that are not following some version of Islam? From what I can recall (and my memory is as fallen as the rest of me), only followers of some version of Islam or other are the ones blowing themselves up in order to kill others.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Philip Snyder #4, there have been some bombings in Sri Lanka recently, and I’m not sure if they were suicide bombings. These were perpetrated by Tamils, who are mostly Hindu. Other than Tamil Tigers, I’m not aware of any other terrorists today who are not Muslim. There are Hindu mob attacks in India from time to time, but that’s somewhat different from organized terrorism (although deplorable, of course).
[blockquote] Everywhere, suicide terrorism has thwarted traditional military and counter-terrorist solutions.[/blockquote]
The tactic of suicide bombing depends upon a very critical assumption – that the targeted nation is too civilized to strike back in kind. It would never have worked against Saddam or the Soviets. The terrorists are saying in effect “We can indiscriminately slaughter your kids & grandchildren on a city bus but you can’t do the same because that would mean you have violated the laws of war.”
The only way to deter this tactic is to impose disproportionate response on the population responsible. You can’t target the terrorists. You have to hit the population that supports them. I have often thought that the Israelis could stop Palestinian suicide bombing by responding to each such detonation with a barrage from a battalion of 155mm Artillery on the bomber’s section of Gaza . When the pain gets too great, the Palestinians will stop.
Now, who is willing to do this? That is a much different question from whether it will work. I do know that the US military was planning to put Baghdad under six feet of water in 1991 if Saddam had used chemical weapons. So such radical measures are not totally off the table. But this much must be accepted – if you aren’t willing, then you must accept the carnage of the bombings. They are simply too effective, and too hard to stop.
carl
#6: The tactic of inflicting disproportionate reprisals on civilian populations really worked well against Britain in 1940, didn’t it? It is amazing how the attack on Pearl Harbor convinced Americans to withdraw from the Pacific, too.
Quite apart from the inability to morally justify these tactics under any known variant of Just War theory, they just don’t work.
#1: The NPR stories I listened to not only pointed out that the women were probably unwitting innocents, but also that both targets were basically petting zoos full of families and children. There was a strong suggestion not only that these tactics indicate desperation and depravity, but also that most Iraqis recognize the fact, even if they keep quiet out of fear.
A guy named Phil Hendrie was the major AM station when I lived in L.A. (he’s syndicated so you might have heard of him).
Anyway, his schtick was to have a “guest” who would take an outrageous position (Phil was both host and “guest”) and the big joke was that unknowing people would call in, outraged, and argue with the faux guest.
Well, one of the shows was Phil as an Islamic recruiter asking Americans to donate their handicapped relatives as suicide bombers – “We are running out of people” was the recruiter’s argument.
Truth turns out to be stranger than fiction.
Ooops – Phil was ON the major AM station…
Carl said, “When the pain gets too great, the Palestinians will stop.”
As Dale Rye said, this tactic would be morally questionable, to say the least. It would also be impractical. I do not think that we understand the Arab Islamic mind very well, but from what I can see, they do not think like the West. Injury only inflames the desire for revenge, it seems — so more injury fuels a greater desire for revenge. It may do so only for an increasingly small group, but it would take quite a long time for those few to die off or change their minds.
We are dealing with an almost incomprehensible mindset. It is hard to plan and to follow through with plans when you do not understand what you are facing. I do not think that they understand us, either.
It is a real mess…
“Read the Quran. The ONLY way to be assured of entrance to Paradise is to give one’s life fighting for Islam. Strapping on a bomb and blowing up oneself and as many others as possible gives one a ‘Go Directly To Paradise’ card and strikes a blow for the One True Faith” —Fr. Dal [#2]
The Hadith, non-Koranic sayings attributed to Mohammed, strictly forbids suicide. They teache that those who commit suicide will go straight to hell and torment themselves for eternity using the same means by which they committed suicide.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Index/S/suicide.html
In any event, suicide-bombing is a recent innovation, inconsistent with past jihadist practice.
“When the pain gets too great, the Palestinians will stop”
On the contrary, the whole point of Palestinian terrorism over the past four decades has been to prove that the Palestinians will not give up, no matter how badly they get beaten.
A quick clarification of my statement [#12] that “the whole point of Palestinian terrorism over the past four decades has been to prove that the Palestinians will not give up, no matter how badly they get beaten.” By “prove” I mean that this is what the terrorists SEEK to prove. I draw no conclusions about what they have in fact proven.
[#6]Dale Rye,
1. I must admit, I am unsure whether you agree or disagree with my assertion that the tactic of suicide bombing would never have worked against Saddam or the Soviets. If you say it wouldn’t have worked against them, then you are conceding that dispropotionate punishment would be an effective counter tactic. Do you agree the tactic assumes a certain degree of restraint on the response of the attacked power?
2. The Japanese attack on Pear Harbor has no applicability to the argument. It was not a disproportionate use of force. It was one of the most brilliantly planned and executed pre-emptive strikes in the history of warfare. It galvanized the American public because it was a “sneak attack” and a humiliating American defeat.
3. The bombing of Britain is also not a good example, because the war was recognized as a war to the death. The population had to keep fighting or face defeat. Its much easier to stand and fight when you have no avenue of retreat. This is not the case with the Palestinians. They can surrender the tactic of suicide bombing and still continue their struggle.
But they must be made to surrender the tactic. It is far too effective to be surrendered voluntarily. The pain on the population must be great enough so that it forces a halt. If the Palestinians know that a bus in Tel Aviv will be repaid with a block in Gaza, the war of attrition will quickly mount up against them. The Palestinians themselves will force an end to the tactic. But to declare that attacks on your civilian population will not be met with an in-kind response is to declare open-season on your civilian population. If you aren’t willing to respond in kind, then you will have to accept the fact that buses will periodically explode in the middle of your cities, and there is nothing you can do about it.
Now whether this response is politically sustainable is unknown. If the Israelis were pilloried for doing what the Palestinains do with impunity, and then stopped as a result, then the Israelis would be worse off then if they had done nothing. But if they could sustain it, the damage inflicted on the Palestinians would eventually become so great, they would be forced to stop.
As to whether it is moral, that depends on how you answer this question. Should I be willing to kill 400 Palestinans to save 40 Israelis? Or perhaps I should ask the reverse question. How many Israelis should I allow to be killed by bombers before I take effective action to stop the bombing? 40? 400? If not, what is the equation? Because there is an equation, and it is not one-for-one.
carl
If the Israelis had wanted to go into indiscriminate mass killings, they have plenty of firepower. They haven’t done so. There’s a reason we call it the “Judeo-Christian” tradition. They have been willing to be political and aggressive about trying to establish a Jewish nation, and there have been problematic episodes, but they have not been willing to be like the Nazis, although they are often accused of it.
In fact, the person the world can thank for the depravity of suicide bombings was a Nobel Peace Prize winner, Arafat. Some legacy.
The tactic of suicide bombing depends upon a very critical assumption – that the targeted nation is too civilized to strike back in kind. It would never have worked against Saddam or the Soviets.
Carl, the Soviet government, inheritors of the Bolshevik revolution, knew all about bombins, suicidal and otherwise – they helped topple the czar. There was a heritage of suicide bombing,dating back to the Decembrists at least. Suicide bombings for political reasons are, sadly, not a new thing. But … to address your point. In so far as the Soviets suppressed such violence it was at the cost of what freedoms? At what cost to the ordinary citizens of the Soviet Union? No thanks.
Carl,
I could not nor would I support any government that used terror tactics to combat terror tactics. We should never NEVER [b][i]NEVER[/i][/b] intentionally target civilians when we have the means not to. It would be better to move from house to house and then (after moving the people out) level the houses in which we find weapons stashes or weapons beyond those needed for personal defense (such as leveling houses where we find RPGs, Explosives, granades, fully automatic weapons, etc.). This should apply to homes, businesses, and houses of worship. If a Church or Mosque is hiding weapons, that building should no longer be considered a safe haven or neutral territory.
Is this more dangerous to our own men? Absolutely. But it is less dangerous to our souls.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
We’ve come a looong way since the days of mass air to ground bombings in WWII, which devestated towns such as Dresden and London.
Now we have missles and bombs which can be programmed with GPS-style tracking to ONLY take out the house or bridge or HQ or tent or whatever, while leaving the surrounding neighborhood unscathed.
Even the Shock and Awe campaign of Iraq targeted specific areas of Baghdad and was not designed to level the entire town.
Golda Meir once said “There will be no peace in the Middle East until the Arabs learn to love their children more than they hate the Jews.” Now that we have seen some Arabs strapping bombs on their own children, we can see how right she was.
Irenaeus,
When Mohamad was asked what made God smile, he replied, “Running into battle with no armor.”
Committing suicide during battle dates back to Mohamad’s own raids.
[blockquote]They teache that those who commit suicide will go straight to hell and torment themselves for eternity using the same means by which they committed suicide. [/blockquote]
True, but they also teach that dying during jihad against the infidel is a bullet-train to Allah’s House of Horizontal Refreshment. As Bernard Lewis points out, those who kill themselves in the process of murdering the kufr or apostates view themselves as dying for Allah in jihad, not committing suicide.
Selah [#20]: Christians have always recognized that there’s a big difference between volunteering for a “suicide mission” and committing suicide. Risking your life against overwhelming odds is not the same as dying by your own hand. We likewise recognize the difference between throwing yourself on a live enemy hand grenade to save your buddies and killing yourself with your own hand grenade.
“As Bernard Lewis points out, those who kill themselves in the process of murdering the kufr or apostates view themselves as dying for Allah in jihad, not committing suicide” —Jeffersonian
Jeffersonian [#21]: Sure that’s how the suicide bombers view themselves. But that view represents a sharp break with past Muslim thought.
Bernard Lewis devoted a whole chapter of “The Crisis in Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror” (2003) to making that point. It fully supports my comment #11.
Interesting that for all the moralizing, no one has answered these two principal questions.
1. How do you deter or redress non-conventional attacks on your civilian population without in-kind response?
2. How many of your own civilians are you willing to see die before you act? What threshold must be exceeded? And make no mistake – there is a threshold. But once you admit the existence of the threshold, then we are just arguing about numbers.
Remember where this started:
[blockquote] suicide terrorism has thwarted traditional military and counter-terrorist solutions [/blockquote]
What we are doing isn’t working. This fact means people still have to answer those questions in the real world. You can accept a certain casualty rate, and a level of terror among your population as the price for keeping your hands clean. But at least admit that is what you are doing – trading the lives of your wives, and children, and grandparents for the sake of your scruples.
carl
#16 Sherri – The “Bullsheviks” did not topple the Czar. They overthrew a short-lived democratic government that had been in place some months after the czar had already abdicated.
But later they did ruthlessly murder the Czar, and his entire family, and then proceeded to re-write history.
[blockquote]Jeffersonian [#21]: Sure that’s how the suicide bombers view themselves. But that view represents a sharp break with past Muslim thought.
Bernard Lewis devoted a whole chapter of “The Crisis in Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror†(2003) to making that point. It fully supports my comment #11. [/blockquote]
I have a well-thumbed copy myself. Of course, orthodox Muslim thought is moot when those the believe otherwise are detonating in Baghdad markets.
The problem with massive retaliation against the Islamic terrorists is where to direct the retaliation: they are stateless and dispersed; and their whole strategy is to blend into civilian, noncombatant populations. You can’t take away their country because they don’t have one. These parasites will simply move to a new host if the old one dies.
Palestine is somewhat of a special case, in that it has a territory. I believe pieces of that territory should be taken for every act of war against Israel that originates within Palestinian territory. But Israel won’t do this, and they won’t inflict massive retaliation against the Palestinians. So, we may not find out how effective such strategies might be, One can understand: Israel is pilloried in popular press for the egregious act of building a border wall to keep terrorists out. Imagine the high dudgeon of the UN if Israel did as I or others here have suggested.
Finally, massive military retaliation may not deter terrorists because it only accomplishes their purposes. Are there massive civilian deaths? That’t what the terrorists do. Does it matter that the deaths are on the Islamic side? No, because they intentionally put their neighbors at risk by trying to make themselves indistinguishable from every man, woman and child noncombatant. The people among whom they live are useful to the terrorists as burned corpses. Go ahead, throw the the terrorists into the briar patch.