Psychology of Suicide ’Bombers’

Re: # 85

Can somebody translate this for us, pleae?

Mr. Ahmed,

For some people, mountains are fine-shaped.. you are th guy who see the rough patches on otherwie softlined mountains.... some have vision and commonense, some dont.....alas!

Re: # 96
For spiritual aspects of suicide and morality of death and life, you will be better off going to your Mullah. Science has no place for such bullcrap.

Netizen #56 {``are you saying that pakis don`t have courage??? ``}

Netty,
Judging by Mushy`s wishy washy positions, I am afraid that the answer is YES. :(

#92 by swarrier

Pls excuse me because I`m jumping in on your/GT conv here. But there appear to be a lot of pre-conceived notions flying around.

To delve into the issue from a psychological perspective, some premises have to be agreed upon for a fruitful discussion:

1) Suicide Bombing is a tactic of guerilla-warfare against targets which are either impenetrable by conventional means or the guerilla lacks the means to penetrate the same.

2) Motivation is the respective underlying `cause`, and not religion or promise of heaven nor houris and so forth, because this tactic was invented by the Japanese, rediscovered by Tamils, and adopted by some religious and some not so religious Muslims much later during the Intifadas. Example is a young woman lawyer dressed in blue-jeans, and no hijab.

3) Suiciders are soldiers like any other, with the only difference being acceptance of 100% probability of death (my post# 77 refers) as against varying degrees of probabilities.

4) The distinction between civilian/military targets is irrelevant because it has been proven time and again since the Hiroshima/Nagasaki nukings that the enemy is not only he whom fights in a uniform and with a gun, but also every civilian who supports that enemy whether young or old, adult or child, man or woman as well as that who is too young to support anything but may grow up to be a supporter. This has most recently been amply demonstrated in Lebanon.

Only once we agree on the above premises, can we go further into the mind of the suicider. If we don not, we can take the above points one-by-one.

Rgds

ranjit #76 {``Salim bhai, what has happened to you? When did you become a flaming jehadi? You were once the Quaid-e-Azam on chowk :-) fighting for Indo-Pak reunification.
Now we have to rename you as Salim Jinnah, for the sudden political U-turn :-).``}

Ranjit Bhai,
I have never been a flaming Jihadi or a Quaid-e-Azam. I still believe in Indo-Pak reunification. What you perceive as a ``sudden political U-turn`` is rather a shrewd tactical move to balance the ``cheerleading for Israel`` squad of my Indian friends and two Paki gora wannabees. Trying to lump all forms of Muslim resistance against occupation into one neat yet despicable AlKayda vessel of terrorism is quite insidious. Hezbollah is fighting against Israeli occupation of Lebanese territory and Palestinians are struggling since 1929 against occupation of their homes by Israeli settlers. Iran is defending its regional interests by resisting western hegemony in Iraq, Soodi Arabia, the occupied territories, and the Gulf. As I have said many times before, India and Indians are NOT the enemies - India is from the region and there should be nothing but friendship and cooperation with India. ``Coalition`` forces are nothing more than the British East India Company on modern steroids. If you want to understand my real views, please refer to my post #36 - I have not changed. Peace.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Tahmed12 #90 {``The fact is that it is NWFP and Karachi are for cultural reasons (primitive tribalism mixed with racial arrogance in NWFP, arab-wannabeism brought over from india by mohajirs in Karachi) the home grounds for mullahism in pakistan.``}

Tahmed11,
Another gem of wisdom from your polluted racist mind. I could understand if you accused Mohajirs of being Persian wannabees, but this Arab mimicry is all native Paki - introduced and spread by the ``Pisser-e-Zameen`` sons of the soil. Don`t forget it was none other than Maha Punju Zina-owl-Hack who replaced the Mohajir Urdu Persian wannabee ``Khuda Hafiz`` with the Soodi Wahabbi Arab wannabee ``Allah Hafiz.`` Next time check your facts before you run rampant with your anti-Mohajir venom.

Re: # 92 by swarrier

You state:

1. ``I can understand some people accepting that death is the only way out``

I think for the suicide bomber it is ``the best choice`` as opposed to ``the only way out``.

2. ``There has to be a psychological trigger that finally convinces them that this is the only way out.``

You are right, and I have no idea what this trigger is. Nevertheless, I propose that religion, individualism and a well structured vision (constitution) of a future social system provides the necessary (though not sufficient) conditions for the trigger.

3. ``...but all religions do emphasise life over death.``

Yes, and in the case of Islam more so. In fact suicide is strictly prohibited. But though we call these guys ``suicide bombers``, they do not believe that they are commiting suicide. There is a clear difference made, specially by shias and now by people like OBL, between suicide and martyrdom. You can find enough literature on this. You may disagree with the literature, but there are people who strongly believe it. It is their belief that counts.

4. ``Why is a religious leader not considered proper suicide bomber material? Ideally if it was just religion, such a leader should be the first one to vapourise himself/herself.``

Excellent point. It is here that individualism comes in. The suicide bomber considers himself to be the supreme `religious leader`. He knows that what he is about to perform cannot be performed by ordinary mortals. He knows that he is able to perform what he is about to perform because he understands his religion, unlike other mortals. By giving up his life he is `sermonizing`.


p.s.: For me religion is a set of black and white (probability one) beliefs. Since they are probability one priors, the concept of updation given contrary evidence is `undefined` (as it implies division by zero). Since it is undefined, any updated probability is rational. Thus: (a) belief in a perfect Tamil state, or any social system, or shintoism is religion for me as long as they are probability one priors; (b) a person with probability one prion who always keeps his posterior beliefs at probability one could potentially be a suicide bomber.

Re: # 100
Zemma…total garbage. The first suicide bombers were muslims in the 11th century Persians. Secondly, the recent suicide bombers are as interested in scoring with 72 virgins as their hatred of the non-muslim. These are guys with extremely low self esteem and nothing going for them, and are easy prey for Mullahs. It is a dream of every Palestinian mother to have a “martyr” in her family, because she has been thoroughly brainwashed by the Mullah. Why don’t you see any Shia suicide bombers? And why majority of them is Wahabi financed and inspired? And why is a Suicide bomber glorified only when he kills jews and non-Mulsims but gets no credit for killing fellow muslims? Where are the portraits of the bombers who killed over 50 at a wedding in Jordan? I think we need more of them.

The problem with most brainwashed muslims such as yourself is that you work backwards. As long as Jews and the infidels are the victims, you will try to somehow justify and glorify suicide bombers, but when they come and fuk the crap out of their own people, they will be labeled bad and oh very “un-islamic”.

Re: # 100

Sometimes Zee comes with good stuff.

1. Enemy 2. Motivation AND 3. Paid or unpaid suicide bombers are the key points. Soldiers may not be counted as SBs but the Japs may be an exception coz the motivation is death and destruction (in the case of a normal soldier the event of death is uncertain).

In some cases SB is a tactic for guerilla-warfare but Shia or Sunni groups targeting the other is an act of revenge o/a hatred in Iraq and Pakistan. Is this an act of guerilla war or madness?

Suicide Bombing is any case is an extreme form of sacrifice out of a seemingly genuine cause or madness. This may be the debating point, something similar to terrorism and freedom fight. A lot of ground for us to fight on this.

In the Time reporting and CBS`s 60 mts I saw, the Palestenian would-be bomber tells with straight face that he`s no fear of death....the trigger moment. The 9/11 and 7/7 bombers had this paradise in mind. The extremist rants points to this angle at least.

Re: # 94

dear swarrior...thank you for your keen interest in the article. you are right. i could not

include many points because of the limitations of the article. i just focused on the

psychology of muslim `suicide bobmers`. while i was doing my reasearch for my book

PROPHETS OF VIOLENCE...PROPHETS OF PEACE i was intrigued by the history of modern

guerrilla wars and warriors started in russia in 1905. Lenin wrote the first article explaining

how violence of guerrilla warriors is different than criminals. after Lenin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh,

Castro, Che Guevara, Begin and Mandela used the tactics of guerrilla war in different parts

of the world. it is interesting that Osama used guerrilla tactics against the same Russians

who gave birth to that tactic and now other muslims are using it. guerrilla war that was

used against religion is used in favour of religion after a century. it has a fascinating

history. i am amazed how different ideologies whether religious or atheistic, national or

international justify and rationalize violence taking lives of innocent civilians. sincerely sohail

Re: # 100 by zeemax

I agree broadly with all your points except (2). To come to some agreement on (2) please do check my last post and see whether my definition of `religion` can be appropriately modified to come to an agreement.

#103 salim: you missed the part in my post where i mentioned that the mullah disease exists in panjab as well. but dont let that stop you from making accusations and hurling epithets.

#85 by Urstruly.

This is an excellent column. Thanks.

Nayyar Zaidi highlights the difference between the predator and the prey. The enemy and the friend. All amongst same-looking human beings. That is the vital observation he makes i.e. `they all look the same`.

I will go one step further. I firmly believe that homosapiens are no different from animals. They are all seperate breeds and kin (Nasal). Perhaps the only difference is that animals look different (as Zaidi points out) so they recognise who is who easily, while the animal in humans is not apparent in appearance. However, the animalistic characteristics of humans are just as distinct as the difference between a German Shephard and a Greyhound.

If you research some of of my posts on the subject of a few years ago, you will find I had written extensively on this. All people are basically one or the other kind of an animal inside, with the character traits of that particular animal.

This is not my whim by the way; the entire Chinese astrology/belief system is based on this concept.

I believe you will find I had categorised some people as `hyenas`.

recently i watched the film PARADISE NOW by palestinian director abu-assad,it tackles the issue of suicide bombers,it was one of the most brilliant films i`ve seen for a long time.

the point that came across in the film was that, occupation leads to humiliation,loss of dignity, etc. in fact they don`t suffer deprivation as much as other parts of the third world, quite the opposite they have nearly first world standard education and health service, largely funded by gulf arabs and EU.

#111 by aslam644 on August 23, 2006 8:35am PT


the point that came across in the film was that, occupation leads to humiliation,loss of dignity, etc.


9/11: The saudis are occupied?
7/7: Brit-Pakis are occupied?

How exactly do people with free healthcare and first world opportunities face ``the loss of dignity``?