"95% of suicide bombers act to expel foreign occupying troops"

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Let’s keep painting the picture that they are psychotic "homicide bombers" that are eager for 72 virgins.
(72 virgins, sounds more like hell to me)

oh, and they hate freedom.


(we won't talk about occupation, our support of repressive regimes that do our bidding, one-sided approach to Israeli - Palestinian dispute, that their only valuable resource is being plundered by despots and for us to consume at a price and rate that we influence and some would say control.)
 
Evil doers that hate freedom....

But why do they hate freedom?

Because they are evil doers, dumbass!
 
If 95% of suicide bombers are purely opposed to the occupation and have no religious motive and no motive concerning the type of Iraqi society they would like to see emerge following the end of the occupation, can someone please explain why they are predominantly attacking Iraqi citizens in particular those attempting to join the police or armed services, instead of targeting their attacks against the US/UK troops? Can someone further explain why they continue suicide bombings despite the fact that the continued violence is serving to prolong the occupation rather than bring it to an end.
 
With regard to your first question (targeting their own citizens instead of foreign troops) it's most likely because they are 'collaborators with the enemy'. They are traitors to their country. By first preventing these traitors to collaborate with the foreign occupiers it will be easier to throw out the occupiers. They then know that their fellow citizens aren't against them (maybe not necessarily in support of them anyway, but that's not that important). When the foreign occupiers have no local support, their effictivity is much less and their vulnerability is much higher.
 
Popmartijn said:
With regard to your first question (targeting their own citizens instead of foreign troops) it's most likely because they are 'collaborators with the enemy'. They are traitors to their country. By first preventing these traitors to collaborate with the foreign occupiers it will be easier to throw out the occupiers. They then know that their fellow citizens aren't against them (maybe not necessarily in support of them anyway, but that's not that important). When the foreign occupiers have no local support, their effictivity is much less and their vulnerability is much higher.

But preventing the development of an Iraqi police force and military won't make it easier to "throw out the occupiers" - it will prolong the occupation because the occupiers will be less likely to leave while there is no functioning police force, military, civil service, etc. And the terrorists (sorry, but I make no apologies for calling them such - they're terrorising people and decimating Iraqi civil society in the process) don't target exclusively "collaborators" -- remember the incident only a few weeks ago where over twenty children were killed by a suicide bomber. And let's not forget that many of these so-called "collaborators" aren't joining the police or military out of choice, but out of dire economic need.
 
I'm sure that would explain the sectarian nature of so many of the attacks in Iraq, attacks on citizens at mosques, and the attacks on barber's who'll shave a man's face, etc. Not to mention that, by undermining the Iraqi police force and the Iraqi economy, they prolong the need for US/Coalition troops to remain, thus prolonging their justification for their holy war.

No one brings up our support of repressive dictators? Didn't we just take out a repressive dictator who we'd previously supported? We just can't win. I didn't initially support the war, but I'm starting to think that no matter what we'd done, it would've been the wrong thing to some people.

Considering the ratio of civilian deaths to military deaths coming out of Iraq as a result of this, I have to doubt the statistics. However, if this is true, it's kind of irrelevant because I don't consider people who attack troops to be terrorists, they're enemy combatants. It's the people who're blowing up citizens, and far more citizens than troops are dying at the hands of suicide bombers at least in Iraq.
 
Oh yes I forgot Iraq and 9/11 were linked

How did you derive that from my statement?

The title of the thread statement is trying to justify the suicide bomber's motives - as noble to dispel and occupying force. I'm saying... I don't think that was the motive of the 9/11 bombers.
 
and of course, I'd like to see how they derive these statistics. Was it in an interview before the suicide bombings or after?
 
MadelynIris said:
and of course, I'd like to see how they derive these statistics. Was it in an interview before the suicide bombings or after?

I just foundthis interview with the author of the book referred to in the article. It might go some way to answering your question, although I doubt it will convince you of the validity of the author's argument.
 
MadelynIris said:


How did you derive that from my statement?

The title of the thread statement is trying to justify the suicide bomber's motives - as noble to dispel and occupying force. I'm saying... I don't think that was the motive of the 9/11 bombers.

I re-read your post and yes maybe you were talking about all suicide bombers in general, but the article was specific about the occupation and I just find it odd that 9/11 was brought about. That's all.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


I re-read your post and yes maybe you were talking about all suicide bombers in general, but the article was specific about the occupation and I just find it odd that 9/11 was brought about. That's all.

I think that while the article is referring specifically to Iraq, the book which is the source of the 95% claim is a study of suicide bombing in general, not only in Iraq. Admittedly I haven't read the book so I'm just basing that judgement on some articles I've managed to find online about it.
 
does anyone remember osama saying himself that he doesn't hate freedom or our way of life? that he does hate what america and its supporters have done to the middle east? and this is why he does not attack sweden?
 
Let's not forget who is running this little shindig: Osama Bin Laden. Who was not in Iraq until we stupidly opened the door for him. Let's not forget (like the rest of the West has) that he is applying the same tactics he used against the Soviets in the late 70's/early 80's. You forget that Binny is a multi-billionaire, he almost singlehandedly paved Saudi Arabia and funded its transition into the modern age...construction-wise.
 
Teta040 said:
You forget that Binny is a multi-billionaire, he almost singlehandedly paved Saudi Arabia and funded its transition into the modern age...construction-wise.

Surely that was people in Bin Laden's family, not OBL himself. He is viewed as the 'black sheep' by his family.
 
Shoot. I didn't finish that post. I was interrupted. I hoped no one would reply...

Did you read your "9/11 Comission report" close enough? They haven't severed ties with him completley, not by a long shot.

Here's what I was going to say about him.

What I find curious in reading about him when the media deign to dirty their hands by talking about him at all, (or our so-called "leaders') is that too few of them mention his role in the Soviet-Afhan war in the late 70'/early 80's. I forget if he funded the mujahadeen or fought with them, but he played some sort of signifigant role in helping the Russians lose that war. He has been aplying those lessons to his twisted plan to overthrow the West. Above all America, Israel's friend. The only thing that could weaken America is drag it into another Vietnam-like situation. And since 9'11 was foiled, he must have slapped his head with glee when Bush with no external provocation gave him just what he wanted...and an ideal training base.

Bin Laden does not want America to get out Iraq. That is not the purpose of the suicide brigade. On the contrary, he wants us to stay as long as possible, but of course does not want things to improve for Iraqis while we are there. From his POV, it is a very delicate operation right now, I'd imagine. This is the reason why there is no large attack on US troops, why Iraqis are getting the brunt of things.

Commit large-scale attacks on American troops and leave Iraqis alone, and he would galvanize support for the war in the American public, which would strengthen his enemy politcally, even as it would strengthen our position there, by substantially more troops quickly. The Iraqi public might also begin to feel some support for the occupation, even after Abu Gharib. And the American public would be thus willing to pay the cost.
But attack mainly Iraqis, it

1)keeps Iraqi public opinion against the American prescence burning under the radar, bu tnot ready for civil war yet.
2)Keeps the war off the front pages of America, since large-scale US casualties make headlines. Americans seem to be willing to tolerate 1-10 US deaths a day; Iraqi deaths of course mean nothing. Bin Laden knows this. Thus, Bush would be low in the polls but there would be no real protest against the war. Bin Laden knwos the US Media very well. Inflcit just enough damage, but keep the war off the nation's front burner. Slow damage is his plan, not a full-out war.
3)If the damage by the insurgents finally makes the Iraqis rebel, hether against the occuptation or by civil war, the resulting strengthening of US troop prescense would only further play inot his hands. The goal is to break us economicaly, slowly and surely, the way he did with the Soviets. Of course, the end result would not be the same; but as a large part of this war (and many of our prigrams) are funded by nations like China, which might someday decided to drop the dollar as its gold standard of trade (look what China did this week already) it might damage us even more.

So that is Bin Laden's goal: keep the situation tense, but not dangerous to the point where Americans would support the war in a major way. Do the maximum amount of domestic damage in Iraq, without making it a matter of top importance on the front pages of America. Keep the Iraqis on edge and discontented; if there is a civil war, fine; but if there isn't, so much the better. It's the chaos that counts. He thinks (and unfortunately, history proves him right) that time is on his side.

It would have been SO much better if we had accepted NATO's offer of help, in September of 2001, instead of going off on our imperialitic venture....
 
I agree with a lot of what you've said Teta...groups that are targetting Iraqi citizens don't want peace, they want power. The quicker they let up the relentess bombing, the quicker we'll leave, but that wouldn't help their cause.
 
Back
Top Bottom