Hahum. I've been checking these forums from time to time, especially the religion forums. All of you have your own views about God or Gods, whether he/she exists or not and it is very interesting to see what kind of a stance you take.

Now to the point... Almost everyday I can read about suicide bombings in Iraq or Israel and I wonder what drives these people to do something like that? Are they patriotic? Are their lives in such a bad shape that they see no worth in themselves? Or is it just the promise of Paradise?

However one major reason came to my mind: The shameless use of religion as a tool.

These people who do suicide bombings are often quite young and are thus more receptive to the teachings of another older terrorist who tells them what to believe in and how to believe. The religion is often shaped to a form where it is most useful to the terrorist. It can be used as a way to spread propaganda; "God watches over us and our enemies will go to Hell because we are God's Chosen". In other words religion becomes a tool.

This is not only a modern phenomenon. Leaders through ages have been cunning enough to make use of this excellent tool to keep people loyal to his/her cause.

Maybe if the religious leaders of the faith the terrorists follow would take a stronger stance against it the young people might not be so mislead and there wouldn't be so many bombings. Do they silently accept them?

The religion itself is not to be blamed though, but the people who preach about it. Having faith in something is a good thing but you should be able to form your own take on religions and question things, but not to the extreme.

Secondly, just like a different race used to be a good reason to hate someone, religion seems to be that now. We do not classify people by their colour anymore, but by religion. It is not blacks and whites anymore, but Christians and Muslims. This leads me to think that perhaps we should avoid classification of religions and find common things in them rather than differences. But maybe this is an impossibility

I'd like to hear your takes on these subjects.

PS. I apologize if this topic would rather belong to the Politics section, I wasn't completely sure.

There are always other tools in the tool box! Often I see that the word religion is singled out as the great evil and plight of mankind. Wars murder and whatever all started because of religions, is far too simple of an explanation. Remember that religion by definition is only a structured form of belief and actions that is shared and practiced by others. Bearing that in mind then politics’ and philosophy are also forms of religious/belief as well as our government structures that are the foundation of civilization. Our believes, encompass all religions, politics, philosophy and art and if you lay blame on only one part of human belief systems while ignoring the others your are simply using it as an excuse to hide your personal biases. And as such you are denying the very core of human civilization.

All the Best
Irish

Some times the simplest explanation is the best explanation.....even for the most complex problem.

Certainly there are tools invested in keeping the peace, sort of speak, across all strata of human society. The issue arises when an institution of god incorporates terrorist tactics so as to wield control over both communities of people; the secular and the spiritual.

Religion is suppose to save us from ourselves.(So we're led to believe) It's not suppose to commit it's authority in such a way as to cause us to pray we're saved from it!

It's just weird how some people need a religious leader figure to give them answers ready on a silver plate. Is that even real believing if you have no interprention of your own what and how you should believe but rather follow norms already made by others? You just accept it as it is...

I for example hate it when someone tries to explain me what or who God is. But to some Christians or Muslims (or to people from some other religions) it is self-evident truth what or who he/she is. Oh well I guess their lucky because they don't have to think about it themselves.

I would agree, but statistically, most suicide bombings are not purely religious in motivation. The current perception is such, only by the prevalence of fundamental islam sponsored terrorism... There may be a reward contained within the religion, but it is not the primary motivation.

However, the broader question contained in the OP is a valid one. Religion can and has been used as a very effective means of control. There are many instances of leaders converting to religions to control populace throughout history (Constantine most famously).

And then there is Mao's famous comment "Religion is the Opiate of the Masses"

I think there is a great deal of validity in that statement.

But as with all things, the median position is probably the most fruitful.

Perhaps. Unfortunately we cannot ask that from the suicide bombers though they're the only ones who really knew :\ . The reason is probably a mix of all those rather than just one of them.

Well actually, and as I meant my reply to communicate, terrorism isn't a tool that is utilized exclusively by zealots of any one particular faith. That that method is incorporated into religious campaigns at all, is an evil in itself. An irrevocable, unforgivable sin accorded every religious institution that utilized the method to survive and expand the faith.

Well, if you watch the videos which they make just before doing their suicide bombing, they state the reasons why they are doing such things. I am correct in stating that religion is not the primary motivation in many cases. (I wrote my thesis on the essence of modern terrorism since 1965)

Not all suicide attackers are Islamic, nor are they religious. The Lebanese civil war in the 80's for example, a handful of the suicide attackers were Islamic, a few were Christians but the majority were Communists and Socialists. What does that say?

In World War II there were the Japanese kamikaze attacks, what drove them to do that?

The first Islamic 'suicide attack', as in strapping explosives to one's body, was carried out in the Iran-Iraq War by a 13 year old Iranian boy named Hossein Fahmideh. He was not instructed to do this but chose to. What drove him to do that?

The common denominator doesn't tend to be religion or nationalism(patriotism to Americans) but neccessity. Right or wrong it is when one party is outnumbered and outgunned that they resort to suicide attacks.

The Japanese after their defeat at the Battle of Midway, found themselves outnumbered and outgunned by newer American planes and resorted to kamikaze attacks. The Iranians outgunned by the Western supplied Iraqi Army began using human wave attacks against the Iraqis to put fear in them at the sight of Iranians charging through minefields. It worked but the Saddam got hold of some posion gas to stop these human waves but the suicide attacks instilled fear once again. In the Leabnese civil war, again, there was an outgunned, outnumbered side that used suicide attacks which had been proven effective.

It is easy to see that the "paradise, virgins blah blah blah" reason is simply an infotainment talking point, gobbled up by many. The phrase "the terrorists" is also used to hide certain elements of the cause or reason behind such actions. Many countries have use terrorist tactics but aren't deemed terrorists, the Afghan mujahideen were once called heroes but now are "terrorists" because who's side they're on has changed, Israeli groups used terrorist attacks to further their goal of a Jewish state and are still honoured, Chechens wanted by Russia are cozy with top US officials, a certain anti-Catro militant is being shielded by the US even though he has admitted to bombing a hotel and airplane.

Take the recent Lebanese conflict, any word on suicide attacks? Nope, Hezballah have laser-guided anti-tank missiles, why blow themselves up anymore?

Suicide attacks are a tactic, right or wrong, not a product of religion in my opinion.

Very well said Hermit.

Karl Marx

Thanks, I don't condone such actions but as with other things it is important to see through the media spin and look for root causes.

A pilot flying an F16 drops a bomb on a house killing the target, his family and some neighbours. This is called a "precision strike" the innocent victims "collateral damage". This is considered "civilized" warfare.

A bomber detonates explosives beside a tank, destroying the tank, killing the occupants and some innocent bystanders. This is called "terrorism", his actions "cowardly" and "barbaric". This is called "evil" by the one's crying crocodile tears for the innocent victims of the suicide attack but not for the "collateral damage".

War is "barbaric", I see no difference.

Good points... Though doesn't terrorism mean that it is specifically targeted at civilians? Precision bombing probably isn't called terrorism because it is targeted at terrorist leaders/fighters. Hezbollah and Israel, I don't know what they target but if it is mainly civilians then they both are terrorists right?

Either way I think war stopped being civilized in the 19th century. No more opposite regiment leaders shaking hands and men in bright suits lining up ready to shoot/to be shot. (Though can it be said war has ever been civilized? :S)

War was never "Civilized" the very nature of war denies that possibility, the reason that "precision" bombing isn't called terrorism is simply because it is being done by the bigger side, wether it is the USA, Israel, China etc the only real difference is the point of view.

For instance for many years the chechnyans fighting against the USSR were referred to as "Freedom Fighters" since the USSR became Russia they are more and more refered to as terrorists, has their objective changed? No. Have there means changed? Generally no though their weaposn may have evolved. Are they being oppressed any less? Not really. So what is the difference now? The difference is that Russia is no longer the USAs enemy, therefore there is no reason to support these people so lets call them terrorists dispite the fact that their fight has not changed one iota

I agree war is not civilized in any way, shape, or form.
I am not saying surgical strikes/precision bombing is OK, but I will say that the intended targets are not civilian in nature.
Yes there will be unfortunate "collateral damage" and as I said.....they are not the target.
With a suicide bomber who do you think the target is.....
Let me give a hint: It is civilian in nature.

There is no clear definition for terrorism.

If the definition is that of specifically targetting civilians, can say for example the Iraqi "insurgency"(*) be called terrorists? At times they target tanks and humvess but kill innocents in the process, though they didn't specifically target civilians. At other times they bomb markets, killing civilians. Terrorism is a tactic, terrorist is an inaccurate term, for it doesn't always accurately describe a group or individual.

What of precision bombing of ports, airports, oil refineries, grain silos and other civilian infrastructure, is this considered civilian in nature? The possibility of killing civilians is very high. The US decimated the Iraqi civilian infrastructure and Israel decimated the Lebanese civilian infrastructure, does this count as terrorism?

Look at the body count on both sides of the recent Lebanese conflict. The majority of Israeli deaths were soldiers, the majority of Lebanese deaths were civilians. Israeli bombings were precision strikes on "Hezbollah targets" though they killed mainly civilians. The math doesn't add up.

War is terrorism. Terrorism is a tactic of war.

* the term "insurgency" or "insurgent" is also an inaccurate term in my opinion. It is a blanket term that includes Sunni and Shia resistance groups, Sunni and Shia death squads(some part of the current government) and foreign groups such as al-Qaeda. Again if more accurate desriptions were used it would become too confusing for the average infotainment viewer and expose them to certain unwanted facts.