May 23, 2007

American Muslim Youth And Suicide Bombing

The Pew Research Center completed an exhaustive survey of American Muslims and found a disturbing trend among younger Muslims. As ABC reports, as many as 1 in 4 Muslims under the age of 30 belive that suicide bombings can be justified in defense of Islam:

While nearly 80 percent of U.S. Muslims say suicide bombings of civilians to defend Islam can not be justified, 13 percent say they can be, at least rarely.

That sentiment is strongest among those younger than 30. Two percent of them say it can often be justified, 13 percent say sometimes and 11 percent say rarely.

"It is a hair-raising number," said Radwan Masmoudi, president of the Washington-based Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy, which promotes the compatibility of Islam with democracy.

He said most supporters of the attacks likely assumed the context was a fight against occupation a term Muslims often use to describe the conflict with Israel.

U.S. Muslims have growing Internet and television access to extreme ideologies, he said, adding: "People, especially younger people, are susceptible to these ideas."

This has some implications for American security. The concern centers on the "home-grown jihadi" phenomenon that has been seen in both Canada and Britain. Radical imams take advantage of the younger Muslims, especially those already feeling dislocation, and inspire rage at the countries in which they live. Canada managed to stop the Toronto cell before they could strike, but the London bombings show that these younger, vengeful Muslims can attack without much warning at all.

Still, the numbers are worse in Europe. In Spain and the UK, around 1 in 4 of all Muslims approve of suicide bombing in defense of Islam, and in France that number goes up to 35%. In Germany, the numbers are closer to the US. Clearly, while we have an issue with younger Muslims, Europe has a greater concern with their entire Muslim communities, which have tens of millions. Hundreds of thousands of European Muslims see their way clear to conducting terrorist attacks to defend Islam, a number which should deeply concern Europeans.

I would recommend that people read the entire study. It's a fascinating and in-depth look at a community that has received a lot of attention but not much study. Even though they tend to have very socially conservative views, they also trend heavily to the Democratic Party -- most likely as a result of the Iraq war, which they reject in higher numbers than the rest of Americans. They also oppose the war in Afghanistan, which indicates that they will not approve of any military action against Muslims regardless of the provocation.

They also tend to wallow in conspiracy theories. Only 40% believe that "a group of Arabs" committed the 9/11 attacks. Thirty-two percent either said they didn't know or refused to answer. Seven percent claimed that George Bush committed the attacks. Even Nigerians scored better on this question, with 42% acknowledging that Muslims carried out the attacks. Great Britain's Muslims scored the worst among Western nations on this question; only 17% believe the truth.

Interestingly, there tends to be a divide between native-born Muslims (mostly African-Americans) and emigrés. For instance, on the question of whether anti-terrorism policies single out Muslims, a thin majority of all Muslims say yes (54%). Native-born Muslims have a much bigger chip on their shoulders (72%), while recent Muslim immigrants seem to have the least amount of problem with it (40%).

Be sure to read through the entire survey, which can be found at Pew in PDF form.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference American Muslim Youth And Suicide Bombing:

» The Residue of Meaning from ShrinkWrapped
So much of what is written about modern psychology and politics neglects an exploration of the human need for meaning in our lives. This is part and parcel of the neo-Marxist mechanistic world view which attributes agency to impersonal structures [Read More]

Comments (36)

Posted by Keemo | May 23, 2007 7:46 AM

I just finished reading a great piece from VDH related to this topic...

Posted by Mike | May 23, 2007 7:58 AM

If your country was invaded, overrun by a foreign power, would you resort to any tactics necessary to fight them off? Would you limit yourself to traditional combat methods?

Posted by Jim | May 23, 2007 7:58 AM

"As many as 1 in 4 Muslims under the age of 30 believe that suicide bombings can be justified in defense of Islam."

Man, that is almost as big a percentage as the percentage of those dangerous "christianists" who believe suicide bombings can be justified in defense of Ashcroft/Cheney Bushhitlers christofascist America!! No wonder enlightened and progressive superior intellects coast to coast are just scared SH--TLESS if any courageous person DARES to risk their VERY LIVES doing someting like: challenging the placement of a nativity scene in public; suing to change the words in the Pledge of Alleg., or to remove the Ten Comms from a wall; mocks priests or nuns or preachers or christians in general in some SNL or Comedy Central skit, speak out against christianity on college campuses, etc. What courage! What nerve!

Why don't they do the SAME type of poll of Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, Mormans, Baptists, Evangelicals, etc? Huh? WHY??
I'll tell you why.....those evil christianists CONTROL the information, that's why. They're suppressing the fact that evil christianists are EVERY BIT AS DANGEROUS as so-called "islamists." If not more so.

Don't think so? Ever hear of Tim McVeigh? The Atlanta Olympics bomber? The guy at Fallwell's funeral? See? All part of an organized and secret Mennonite or perhaps Amish or even Lutheran sect of christofascists who won't stop their violent wave of hate crimes until every pregnant woman is forced to give birth to that unwanted clump of cells - and all gay men are forced into humiliating 'partnerships' instead of having beautiful and tasteful weddings with DJ's, open bars and incredible flower arrangements......and all the oppressed children in school are forced to "pledge" allegiance to a country purporting to be 'under' some fictional vaporous fairy tale spirit!!

Oh the humanity....oh the sheer equivalence of it all. Don't be a hater though. Don't judge ALL of us based on one little sect which represents the views of at most, 1 in 4 of us. Okay, maybe 2 out of 5, but still.....

Posted by Carl | May 23, 2007 8:04 AM

Since there isn't a country called Muslim or Islam or Islamistan, I think these folks should practice their suicide missions on themselves first.

Posted by Nessus | May 23, 2007 8:08 AM

Gee, I wonder it can be related to increased Muslim immigration over the past 10 yrs or so?

Believe me, from a life-long resident of Dearborn, Michigan (Islamic capital of the USA), Islam is an ideology as well as a faith and the radical, political element is a major part of it.

It's the immigration stupid!

Posted by Jim | May 23, 2007 8:11 AM

If your country was invaded, overrun by a foreign power, would you resort to any tactics necessary to fight them off? Would you limit yourself to traditional combat methods?"

Were the 911 suicide bombers, the London suicide bombers, the Madrid suicide bombers, and all the other attempted (i.e., Richard the Shoe guy, etc.) suicide bombers "defending their COUNTRY" when it was "overrun by a foreign power."? Assuming it is even a fair characterization to describe our throwing Saddam out and atttempting to install a representative democracy in Iraq in that manner (which it isn't) - were any of them Iraqis - fighting to "liberate" their country from the Yankee invaders? ANY of them? Hmmm?

Nope. Didn't think so. So your point therefore is???.

Oh, and no our christofascist culture has never been overly big on pre-planned and orchestrated suicide attacks which are specifically targeted at civilian groups (airline passengers, shopping malls, etc.) as opposed to military targets. Even the Japenese Kamikazes were directed at military and not civilian targets.

Posted by Mwalimu Daudi | May 23, 2007 8:22 AM

Jim wrote:

All part of an organized and secret Mennonite or perhaps Amish or even Lutheran sect of christofascists ...

OOPS - Jim is on to us in the Vast Wingless Lutheran Conspiracy! Yup - we are to be feared more than Islamofascists. Others resort to puny bombings, but we use the heavy stuff - like our intent to inflict boring hymns, obscure liturgy, and vomit-inducing "Give peace a chance" sermons onto the rest of society. It goes back to our double-secret motto - Born To Be Mild.

Fear the Vast Wingless Lutheran Conspiracy!

Posted by ralph127 | May 23, 2007 8:32 AM

Turkish Secularism on the Ropes
By Robert Spencer
Why all free people have a stake in the survival of Turkey’s secular government. More>
It’s a principle with a much wider application than Turkey alone: for peaceful Muslims to prevail over the proponents of jihad and Sharia, they must be prepared not just to ignore, but to reject explicitly, the elements of Sharia that are at variance with accepted norms of human rights and with government that does not establish a state religion. Only then will they have a chance of defending those rights and standing up against the theological and societal challenge of jihadism. That is not just the Turks, but all free people, have a stake in the survival of Turkish secularism.

Name one Muslim cleric in America, or anywhere in the world, who rejects jihad and Sharia and does so publicly, unconditionally and in terms of Islamic theology. Where are the Muslim clerics condemning the scum who condone suicide murder in the name of their god? We must find the courage to acknowledge the terrible truth that the problem with the realm of Islam is not a lack of freedom but that it is that Islam denies man his God given Rights.

We must have separation from the realm of Islam. We must have separation unless and until the vast majority of Muslims establish and promulgate a rational for peaceful coexistence with unbelievers. We need leaders who will be as brutal and as furious as necessary to establish this separation. We need separation before good Muslims reduce an American city to radioactive rubble.

Does anyone believe this grand immigration compromise is brutally furious enough to do what must be done to provide for the common defense?

What city do you think good Muslims will nuke first?

Posted by dave` | May 23, 2007 8:33 AM

This study finds that 74% of young American Muslims think that attacks aimed at civilians are never justified, and 24% think that they are at least "rarely".
Compare that with Americans, only 46% of which think that attacks against civilians are never justified, and 54% think that they are at least "rarely":

Who are the terrorists?

Posted by dave | May 23, 2007 8:38 AM

BTW, most suicide bombings worldwide are committed by secular individuals, not Muslims.

Posted by Cybrludite [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 23, 2007 8:42 AM


Being that this poll was of Muslims who are citizens of the US, I just have to ask when exactly were we invaded & taken over?

Posted by NahnCee [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 23, 2007 8:42 AM

I wonder how many of the "young Muslims" who think jihad is peachy keen are also members of the Muslim Student Unions that are being so disruptive on campuses across the country.

These young Muslims are being indoctrinated into the wonders of killing infidels not only by Muslim clerics (doubtless funded by Saudi Wahhabi money), but are also being fed a daily anti-American line by the moonbat leftist professors in our universities, and are *then* left to riot, desecrate, threaten and generally misbehave by the gutless administrations of said institutions.

I suppose, like all other left-leaning university students, they'll have to graduate into the Real World before they run smack-dab into big mean Reality from that the Ivory Tower they inhabit now that promises them victory over submissive infidels.

Posted by LarryD | May 23, 2007 8:45 AM

Sounds like Jim is as much into conspiracy theory, projection, displacement, and denial as many Muslims. Don't bother debating him though, denial is impenetrable.

ralph, I don't think Islam recognizes any Allah given rights for infidels, I'm not sure they even recognize any for Muslims.

Posted by Jim | May 23, 2007 8:55 AM

"BTW, most suicide bombings worldwide are committed by secular individuals, not Muslims." Source for your stats please, Dave?

Although, even when/if the source for this claim is provided, I suspect that the data may be skewed, and the professed religion of a particular attacker might not make it in to the data compilation each time. Due to political correctness, for example, when mobs of young men go on rape and arson rampages in, say, France, and they ALL happen to be......muslims......they are often simply identified as "angry youths" in the AP, Reuters, etc., media accounts.

Same thing, I suspect might happen with data compiled on a suicide bombing in Indonesia or the Phillipines. "A disaffected an unemployed youth, blew himself up in a Bali market yesterday..." And what the story leaves out is that he chanted 'praise be to Allah' as he detonates himself, and strangely enough, not "here I come Jesus," or "Shalom."

But I could be wrong. If it is non-religious secularists blowing themselves up around the world, do share the data on that, Dave.

Posted by Jim | May 23, 2007 9:03 AM

LarryD, I am in awe of your large brain. But try to enlighten me anyway; and explain to me how I am "in to":

Conspiracy theory:




based on my attempt at a satirical post, mocking those (like Andrew Sullivan) who equate christians with islamists?

Posted by dave | May 23, 2007 9:29 AM

I have my notes with specific page numbers at home. You’ll have to wait until tonight for page numbers.
Robert Pape of the University of Chicago ran a very thorough study that analyzed every suicide bombing from 1980 to 2003. The study was conducted by the Chicago Project on Suicide Terrorism, funded in part by the Pentagon Defense Threat Reduction Agency, and the results published in a book called “Dying to Win”.
Pape studied 461 suicide attacks overall. He ascertain the religious or ideological affiliation of 384 of them:
“Of the 384 attackers for whom we have data, 166, or 43%, were religious, while 218, or 57%, were secular.”
These results were mirrored by work published in a book called “Making Sense of Suicide Missions”, edited by Deigo Gambetta, who found similar results for the percentage of suicide attacks committed by secular indivduals. I'll have to get the data and page numbers tonight.

The most prolific suicide bombers are the LTTE. They are not Muslim.

Let’s look at suicide bombing in Lebanon. Pape’s database contains data on 41 attackers. From the book:
“…at least 30 of the 41 attackers do not fit the description of Islamic fundamentalism. 27 were communists or socialists with no commitment to religious extremism; three were Christians. Only 8 suicide attackers were affiliated with Islamic fundamentalism; the ideological affiliation of 3 cannot be identified."
Of course, your first reaction is probably that Pape is a lying anti-Semite. Ariel Merari is head of the Center for Political Science at Tel Aviv University. He has a chapter in the book “Origins of Terrorism:Psychology, Ideologies, Theologies, States of Mind”, edited by Walter Reich and Walter Lacquer. He counts suicide bombing in Lebanon by incidents, and not individuals. Going by incidents, he finds that 7 out of 31 suicide bombings in Lebanon were committed by religious fundamentalists. The book is searchable on Amazon. The info is on page 204. Simply search “204”, and go to that page.

What one researcher after another finds when analyzing the data is that suicide terrorism is a result of occupation, not Islam. Pape finds “little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any one of the world’s religions”.

Let's look at Hamas. The Jeruselm Media and Communication Center runs polls of Palestinians yearly. In 2002, 20% of the population supported Hamas, and the support for all Islamic groups combined was 27%. The support for suicide bombings in this year was 68%. If support for suicide bombing has Islam at its center, how is it possible for suicide bombing to have a much larger foundation of support than Islamic groups? This does not make sense. What does make sense is occupation. In April 2002 the same group found that 65% of Palestinians who supported suicide operations cited as a main reason Israeli military incursions.

Pape’s study concluded that there are three conditions which lead to suicide bombings. The first and most important is that a foreign occupation of a community’s homeland is likely to lead to a campaign of suicide terrorism as part of a national liberation strategy. The second factor is that there must be a religious *difference* between the occupiers and the occupied. The key factor is religious difference, not which specific religions are involved. The most extensive suicide bombing campaign in history involves the LTTE (a Hindu/secular resistance) against occupation by Sri Lanka (Buddhist). There are no Muslims involved. A very interesting development in this particular conflict occurred when India temporarily inserted itself into the conflict. Even though the Indian army was much more violent towards the LTTE and committed many more atrocities towards them than the Sri Lankans ever did, there was never a single incident of suicide bombing carried out by the LTTE against the Indian army. The obvious reason for this is that the Indian army is also Hindu. The third factor is that the occupying power must be a democracy. Suicide bombings have a target of coercing the occupying nation into altering its policy (which has been achieved several times), and this is perceived to be more possible when the occupying power is a democracy.
When logit regression is applied to Pape's theory, the result shows the theory to be accurate to a level of 0.001. This level of accuracy could have only been achieved by chance in less than one in 1000 times. The common benchmark used to validate theories in social sciences is a p value of 0.05. Pape's theory is much more predictive than even that common benchmark. P values of 0.001 are commonly used in medicine where absolute accuracy is required for patient safety.

It’s the occupation!

Pape again:
“…Islamic fundamentalism is not the main cause of suicide terrorism, and conquering Muslim countries to transform their societies is likely to increase the number coming at us.”

Posted by dave | May 23, 2007 9:47 AM

"...I suspect that the data may be skewed..."

As is always the case here, it is the accuser that is always the one guilty of the accusation. Serious researchers of suicide terrorism look at ALL cases. When this is done, you find that Islam is not a major factor, and it is occupation that is. When right wing nutbags blame all suicide attacks of Islam, they ONLY look at cases where Islam is a factor, and ignore all cases where it is not. It is their analysis, and as a result your worldview as well, that is skewed.

Posted by Dan | May 23, 2007 9:49 AM

It's also quite possible a poll would show that 25% or more of younger U.S. non-Muslims find the illegal U.S. invasion of Iraq and continuing occupation of that country acceptable, but I haven't heard such acceptance described as "hair-raising" or a "disturbing trend".

Posted by NoDonkey | May 23, 2007 9:54 AM

I think these "surveys" are largely useless in measuring true inclinations.

Polls and surveys have been rendered utterly meaningless by how pervasive they are and by how people answer more to "send a message" than they do to convey their inclinations.

Besides, most of the survey questions are biased towards a conclusion, misleading and too poorly written to use to make any sort of conclusion.

What might be interesting are follow-up questions to the survey questions. But most surveys are a blunt tool at best.

Posted by Jim | May 23, 2007 10:12 AM

"Pape studied 461 suicide attacks overall. He ascertain the religious or ideological affiliation of 384 of them: “Of the 384 attackers for whom we have data, 166, or 43%, were religious [What religion? Does he say?] while 218, or 57%, were secular.”[what does that mean? Were they atheists? Does he say?].

As for the suicide bombings in Lebanon - were all 41 of them in this study committed by people who face (or faced until they murdered others and themselves) Mecca several times a day? See, I guess my point is just because they all may not be doing it "in the name of Islam" doesn't change the fact that all of them were Muslims, right? Sure seems like a "cultural thing" doesn't it?

Sure, if the Arab(Muslim) world can kill enough Jews so that the few remaining survivors leave and Israel is then elimated - yep, I'm sure we'll see a drop in the number of suicide murderers emanating from the Palestinian region. Who are all.....muslim, right? And I guess after we've bugged out of Iraq and AFTER the power struggle between Sunni, Shia, et al has resolved itself (and not a moment before) and some leader or group assumes totalitarian rule again, we'll see a sharp drop in suicide murderers. Who are all...Muslim.

"Pape’s study concluded that there are three conditions which lead to suicide bombings. The first and most important is that a foreign occupation of a community’s homeland is likely to lead to a campaign of suicide terrorism as part of a national liberation strategy. [Me: Especially or perhaps ALWAYS if the "occupied community" is Muslim...unless they fit into that one apparent Hindu exception, right?]. The second factor is that there must be a religious *difference* between the occupiers and the occupied [Me: Again, aside from your one Hindu exception, one of the two religions involved will be....Islam, every...time. Right?]. The key factor is religious difference not which specific religions are involved. [With one exception - one of the two religions is always Islam, right? ]. The most extensive suicide bombing campaign in history involves the LTTE (a Hindu/secular resistance) against occupation by Sri Lanka (Buddhist). There are no Muslims involved. [A singular albeit very extensive exception to the rule?]. A very interesting development in this particular conflict occurred when India temporarily inserted itself into the conflict. The third factor is that the occupying power must be a democracy ["democracy" a/k/a westernized judeo-christian based form of government - at odds with Sharia?].

To say "it is the occupation" is simplistic attempt to bootstrap, with all due respect. Simply because there are many variations of "occupations." But (with that exception involving a crazed group of Hindus) what common demoninator does exist?.....answer: Islam.

Posted by dave | May 23, 2007 11:03 AM

I guess it is clear from the level of your response that this will go nowhere. I’ll respond anyway:

“I guess my point is just because they all may not be doing it ‘in the name of Islam’ doesn't change the fact that all of them were Muslims”
It is quite possible that some of the people that were labeled “secular” in terms of their motivation to commit a suicide attack would have labeled themselves Muslim if asked what their religion is. That does not in any way imply that religion was the motivation for their actions. Most of the suicide bombers in Lebanon were part of the communist party. How many fundamentalist Muslims join communist parties? These people leave suicide videos, and most people say that they are going to commit suicide to drive the occupiers out of their country. What does that say about motivation? It’s occupation, not Islam. Let’s say China invades the US and occupies us for decades, making life intolerable. If some turned to suicide bombing for resistance, and they happened to go to church on Christmas Eve and called themselves Christian, would that mean that Christianity was the motivating factor? I think not. Three of the suicide bombers in Lebanon were Christians. Does that mean that Christianity was responsible in those cases? Of course not. I would never make that claim, because I am not an idiot. The reason that the Christians and the communists and the Muslims committed suicide are all the same. It is because of the occupation. Categorization of over half of suicide bombers as secular is quite valid, and you have said nothing to address the fact.

Suicide bombing was unknown in Lebanon before the 1982 Israel invasion and occupation. Then suicide bombing starts. Then Israel leaves in 2000. Then suicide bombing stops. Do you see a pattern? Suicide bombing in Iraq was unknown before the US occupation. As bad as Saddam was, noone committed a suicide attack to try and overthrow him.Then US occupation happens, and suicide attacks start. Notice a connection? Suicide bombing in Afghanistan was also unknown before the US occupation.

“crazed group of Hindus”
Rather than ignoring the most prolific suicide bombing group in history, why not address it? What makes this group of Hindus “crazed”? Is it Islam? Is it Hinduism? Or is it maybe occupation?

When I bring this subject up, why is the first reaction to ignore the largest group that falls into the category? When talking about who commits the most crime, should we ignore black males and conclude that it is white males? When talking about who commits the most serial murders should we ignore white males and conclude that women are most responsible? What basis do you have for ignoring the largest group responsible for an action? Is that how you obtain you objective worldview?

There are well over a billion Muslims. Have you noticed that nearly of the “crazed” Muslims who commit suicide bombings are either living under occupation of state occupation as a major factor in their actions. Is this a coincidence?

Posted by dave | May 23, 2007 11:34 AM

Merari says:
“The distribution of the perpetrators of suicidal attacks just presented leads to the unavoidable conclusion that this brand of terrorism is not the exclusive domain of religious fanaticism in general, nor is it a characteristic of Shi’ite self-sacrificial zealots in particular. In most cases the perpetrators sacrificed themselves in the name of a nationalistic rather than a religious idea…”

It is amazing that Walter Lacquer, author of "The History of Zionism", allows Merari to publish such nonsense in a book edited by him. I guess if Lacquer had read your insightful post, he would not have.

Posted by Jim | May 23, 2007 12:35 PM

"Let’s say China invades the US and occupies us for decades, making life intolerable." What country has the USA invaded, and occupied for decades, and made life intolerable in? Irrelevant hypo not remotely applicable to the actual world in which we live. Oh that's right - we've "occupied" (through our proxy, the Zionist state) the independant nation of Palestine all these years. Which was the motivation behind 911, right? Oh that's right, that is not the reason OBL gave.....

People can reach all sorts of conclusions based on raw statistics, now can't they. For example, let's say (to make the numbers easy) that the Oklahoma bombing killed 1000 people; and 911 killed 3000. And let's say we did NOT find out after 911 that the hijackers were praising Allah in their final moments; all we found out was how pissed OBL was at our arrogant intrusion onto Saudi soil with our nasty air bases, and whatever other (secular/nationalistic of course - praise be to Gaia Mother Earth) reasons OBL gave for wanting to kill America the Occupiers. And let's say that it came out after Oklahoma that Tim McVeigh had been a practicing catholic, and in fact, had just come from confession before heading over to do his deed.

I guess our conclusion would be obvious, wouldn't it:

"25% of all domestic terrorist deaths were the result of acts catholic extremists and 75% can be attributed to secular and/or nationalistic causes."

But you know, and I know, that such a conclusion would be a false one. You know, and I know, that it wouldn't matter if Tim McVeigh had a statue of Mary on his dashboard and said the Rosary before and I would not be taking off our shoes in the airport and putting our 3 ounce toiletry bottles into plastic bags as a result of anything coming out the mouths of the Pope or any of his Cardinals, Bishops, Priests, and Imans (oops wrong religion, sorry).

Would we.

Posted by dave | May 23, 2007 12:40 PM

I think our conversation can be over. Let's let our discussion rest on what we have both written so far.

Posted by Jim | May 23, 2007 1:05 PM

Dave, let's say I just roll over. Let's make this easy. Now...let's talk solutions, shall we?

Let's say there's nothing dysfunctional at all about a signifcant segment of Islam. Not true at all - it's just some delusional ignorant nutjubs who need to read more treatises where stats are broken down for their poor pea brains. Done!

Let's say that even though virtually ALL of the suicide bombers who are trying to KILL AMERICANS happen to be Muslims and not Jews, and not Buddists, and not Christians, and not Shintos, and not Taoists, etc., it is completely unrelated to Islam. Pure coincidence. It's just nationalist, secularist, pride,.....and its ALL ABOUT the 'OCCUPATION.' Got it. Done. (Are you getting proud of me yet, Dave?)

Occupation. Such a slippery word. So many 'nuanced' meanings are I suppose the only way to define it is to allow those oppressed 'occupees' to define it, in accordance with their terms. Sound good to you Dave? Okay - got it. Done.

1. Get out of Iraq, now. Okay, check. Done.
2. Get all bases, jets, etc. out of Saudi or any other Arab country. (based on secular reasoning of course only; praise be to Gaia Mother Earth) Done. Check.
3. Get all ships out of Persian Gulf, Eastern Med. Their "water" is being occupied by we oppressors too, probably. Done. Check.
4. Get out of whereever else we're not wanted, and would be considered "occupiers," of (secular and not Islam-based countries, and if so, it is just a coincidence!! I understand), in e.g., Africa. Except to send money/aid, if it is demanded. And if we get permission. And if our female aid workers where burkas. The secular, nationist kind. Check. All done. Mighty fine work. Get the hell out of ANY "occupier" type of setting. Got it.

Are we good? All good now? All fine, Dave? Can we go back to pre-911 security now? No more shoes off in the airport, etc.?

What??? You mean we CAN'T?

Oh yeah........that Zionist state.


What to do Dave? What do we do about that pesky problem with the Jews? The nationalist, secular and oppressed occuppees, and their friends in all the very huge adjoining countries nearby (who won't be "occupied" any longer, but why quibble over such a mere detail) appear to want them dead. Or do I have that one wrong too? Or maybe they just want enough of them dead, so that the rest leave (or are giving temporary permission to stay as second class citizens for awhile). If we stay out of the way while they kill Jews, will they finally leave us all alone Dave?

Peace out. Religion of Peace, that is (wink).

Posted by Jim | May 23, 2007 1:08 PM

Dave - agreed. I didn't get your close out post until I had already done my one immediately preceding. I have to shut down anyway to get some work done.

I'll let it go now.

Posted by dave | May 23, 2007 1:34 PM

I'd like to make one more comment upon reading your last post. It is not presented as any type of argument, and I have no intention in reviving anything. I am responding because I am so amazed that you have come so close to the answer on how to stop suicide bombing and terrorism in general. Your solution is very close to that of William Blum (OBL's favorite author), who said:

"“If I were the president, I could stop terrorist attacks against the United States in a few days. Permanently. I would first apologize to all the widows and orphans, the tortured and impoverished, and all the many millions of other victims of American imperialism. Then I would announce, in all sincerity, to every corner of the world, that America's global interventions have come to an end, and inform Israel that it is no longer the 51st state of the USA but now -- oddly enough -- a foreign country. I would then reduce the military budget by at least 90% and use the savings to pay reparations to the victims. There would be more than enough money. One year's military budget of 330 billion [this was written a while ago -Dave] dollars is equal to more than $18,000 an hour for every hour since Jesus Christ was born. That's what I'd do on my first three days in the White House. On the fourth day, I'd be assassinated.”

There's your solution.

Posted by Jim | May 23, 2007 2:28 PM

And quite the workable solution it is, indeed. Isn't it, Dave? You must agree with it, since you propose no other. Glad we got that all figured out.

I note that Blum is also cited favorably by such other luminaries as Oliver Stone and Norm Chomsky, in addition to OBL. I'll bet Ward "Little Eichmans" Churchill is also a big fan. Star studded list, eh?

Yep. The problems of the world are America's fault. 100%. America.Bad. America.Evil. America.Imperialist. America.Oppressor.

If one of our cities gets nuked within the next couple of years by the justifiably angry and oppressed Iranians who are only defending themselves after all - or punishing us for supporting those horrible Jews; or whatever other logical and justifiable reason they decide to give for murdering tens of thousands of civilians.....well, according to Blum (and you I take it) we had it coming to us; we deserved it. Right? Gotcha, Dave. Glad to know where you stand. Have a nice day.

Posted by Joe Helgerson | May 23, 2007 4:26 PM

No one is saying that America is responsible for all bad things in the world......I'm just saying we have to use common sense before we.......lets just say.....pre-emptively attack a sovereign nation. Do people on this blog actually think the Sunni insurgents will stop attacking foreign invaders? Whats ironic is the Shia majority should be tickled pink we overthrew Saddam.Some are some aren't.Shouldn't that be a clue to Bush were f_cked? Throw in some foreign jihadis and you have chaos.We could stay 100 years, they'll still have their civil war when we leave. Funny HOW WE SUPPORTED SADDAM DURING THE IRAN-iraq war in 1980. Our invasion has made Iran much stronger in the region......what say you neo-cons?

Posted by Bitter Pill | May 23, 2007 7:29 PM

JIm, you're wasting your time. Dave is the mayor of ding-a-ling land.

You know, that fantasy land where socialized medicine actually works rather than being a rat-infested plague like Cuba. Where purveyors of tinfoil abound.

Oh yeah, where the laws of physics don't apply so morons like dave can believe Bush engineered the destruction of the twin towers.

Posted by dave | May 23, 2007 8:00 PM

Here's the page number for the Gambetta reference. I'm sure you'll look it up:

“Contrary to a widespread belief, the majority of [suicide missions] have been carried out by secular rather than religious organizations.”

Page viii (Gambetta)

Posted by dave | May 23, 2007 8:12 PM

By the way, Ever wonder what group started suicide missions? Maybe your thinking Kamikaze's, or even the Russian anarchists, but it was long before that. It was a messianic, fundamentalist, terrorist group with an eschatological view complete with the idea of martyrdom. Give up? It was the Zealots of two thousand years ago. And guess what their motivation was? Occupation! (By the Romans). I guess things don't change very much.

Posted by Rose | May 23, 2007 11:58 PM

Dim Pundits on Fox News want us to remember - 74% of muslims don't agree with suicide bombing.

Now, ain't THAT a royal comfort!

Do ya think the DIMS would take comfort in knowing that 74% of Republicans don't believe in tarring and feathering traitorous politicians???

Posted by Rose | May 24, 2007 12:10 AM

If your country was invaded, overrun by a foreign power, would you resort to any tactics necessary to fight them off? Would you limit yourself to traditional combat methods?

Posted by: Mike at May 23, 2007 7:58 AM


Well, we know you ain't referring to Bosnia.

Well, for that matter, we know you ain't referring to India.

well, as far as THAT goes, we know you ain't talking about the Philippines.

Well, come to think about that, you are not referring to Australia.

Well, now, there ain't no second thought about it, you ain't talking about France.

And we know for sure you ain't referring to America.

We see you do not believe that America has a right to deal harshly with invaders of America.

Since you feel that way about it, we want you to know and be absolutely certain, when we see visitors headed towards YOUR house, we know absolutely you want us to make sure that they are given NO interference whatsoever!

Hey, I live down here close to the border, if anyone stops through here asking directions, I'll be sure and let them know you are running a sanctuary house for them.

You can be certain sure.

No, no, no... you don't have to thank me! It will absolutely be my sheer unmitigated pleasure.

Posted by Cybrludite [TypeKey Profile Page] | May 24, 2007 2:50 AM


I agree that the majority of suicide bombings have been carried out by the Tamils. However, I have yet to see any evidence that they have territorial goals which extend beyond Sri Lanka. The ones who seem intent of using this charming technique to extend their control world wide would appear to be pretty exclusively Muslim.

Posted by dave | May 24, 2007 8:06 AM

"...appear to be pretty exclusively Muslim..."

More accurately, one Muslim Qaeda. Hezbollah and Hamas/IJ have only attacked their occupying nation (Israel). As for Al Qaeda, they also seem to be attacking only occupying nations (coalition members). Their technique is certainly not used world wide. I think your pretty safe in Sweden, Iceland, Costa Rica, Cuba, Madagascar, etc.