Bush said "we" will not stop until "we" achieve total victory. Is this just making Iraq a happy little Democratic country?

Let's get one thing straight. There are terrorists all over the world. There are terrorists in Europe. There are terrorists right here in the good old US of A.

What is a victory of terrorism going to look like??

Children of the Corn

Bush said "we" will not stop until "we" achieve total victory. Is this just making Iraq a happy little Democratic country?

Let's get one thing straight. There are terrorists all over the world. There are terrorists in Europe. There are terrorists right here in the good old US of A.

What is a victory of terrorism going to look like??

I assume you mean, what does a victory OVER terrrorism look like? To the current American leader, it probably means nothing other than maintaining a sense of "state of war" that allows for the current political leadership in America to continue beyond his term. To me, it means a world of cooperation for the good of all, the end of First World vs. Third World, and elimination of explotation and need for small factions to feel they need to kill innocent people to have a voice or make a meaningful difference in the world.

It is a purposely vague, meaningless term to keep the "war" open-ended and not allow for defeat under his "leadership".
We can't possibly succeed, so he doesn't have to pull out.
We can't possibly fail, short of pulling out, so by refusing to pull out, he is refusing to fail.

The only way you are going to have a 'total victory' against terrorism is to turn the Earth into a wasteland. But then that would be an act of terrorism.

Ahh, the irony.

Using the incorrect title of the thread, "what is total victory of terrorism" it includes the following.
Restriction of freedoms in the target countries by governments under the guise of fighting terrorism.
Removal of freedoms in the target countries by governments under the guise of fighting terrorism.
Carrying out of invasions, not internationally sanctioned, by target countries governments under the guise of fighting terrorism.
Creating divisions within the target countries, which divisions are deepened by anti-terrorist rhetoric and legislation of those countries goverments.

The function of terrorism in this context is to create reaction that will produce changes in the target country so that it no longer is the country it was, but has sacrificed many of its values in order to counter terrorism. And Bush and Blair and their cronies fell for it hook, line and sinker.

When I heard it, Bush said a "total victory of terrorism." I think he said what he meant.

We're pretty near there. Bush and his cronies fell for it because they wanted to fall for it.

He meant, an open ended state of war in Arabic and other oil rich countries, which are bound to spawn terrorists eventually and state oppression in the so called free world.

We are actually in a place where fighting against terrorism will destroy everything that we are trying to save.

The function of terrorism in this context is to create reaction that will produce changes in the target country so that it no longer is the country it was, but has sacrificed many of its values in order to counter terrorism.

So should the free nations of the world just let the terrorist blow up it's people without any attempt to stop it or to protect its people?

I'm not sure that I fully understand the implications of your statement. Can you explain it more fully?

Baron Max

There is a practical problem: you can't fight a war on terror. Indeed, calling it that, and invoking the changes (Homeland Security in the US, Identity Cards in the UK) to fight it are playing into the terrorists hands. The fact that the governments in the US and the UK are going down this route suggests either they haven't thought the problem through very well, or they are using the terrorism as a means to implement a separate agenda.
The way to fight a war on terror is three fold:
1) Quiet, continous, properly funded intelligence operations.
2) Removal of the underlying causes of terrorism. In this instance one of the most important is the one sided interminable support of the US for the Israeli government over decades. Invading Iraq sure didn't help, and holding prisoners in Guantanamo without due process is also doing no favours for the US in the eyes of the world.
3) On an individual level spit in the eyes of the terrorist. When the London bombings occured this summer I was in Moscow. I tried to alter my return flight so I could come via London and go into Central London with the express purpose of riding the Underground. On my last trip to Jakarta I stayed at the Marriot Hotel, that had been the target of the fatal bombing a few months before. I am presently considering a holiday in Bali. You see my point.

1) Quiet, continous, properly funded intelligence operations.

But as you well know, people don't believe intelligence services anymore and want absolute, total proof of their assertions BEFORE anyone will act or provide money for protection/police/etc. Every time there's a "threat" noted by intell services, there's a big accusation of proof! You know that as well as I do.

2) Removal of the underlying causes of terrorism.

But there's major arguments and disagreements as to what the "underlying causes" are!! And, just so you know, my own feelings are that terrorists are nothing more than murderers ....and YOU and others think that we should cowtow to them because of their desires to murder?!

And if we do, what about tomorrow when someone else in the world doesn't like something? Do we cowtow to them, too? And does that continue forever?

3) On an individual level spit in the eyes of the terrorist.

I'm laughing! The terrorists don't care about YOU or me, they care about the general media coverage and the sensationalism! And you can't expect news agencies to ignore all major terrorist actions, do you?

I actually think I do see your point ....you want to give the terrorists whatever they want. You want the USA and the rest of the western world to turn our backs on Israel just because a few radicals want us to! And if we do, and the terrorists kill all the Israelis, what's next? Who's next? Who else don't the terrrorist like or want? And do we then give them that, too?

Baron Max

We had the choice to use better technologies than petroleum. Instead we let Middle East despots become wealthy enough to finance operations like 9/11. All of this terrorism is our chickens coming home to roost, and we want to try to solve the problem by doing more of the same. Good going.

So, MetaKron, you agree that if someone is not happy with the way things are in the world, then they should resort to blowing up things and killing people to get what they want????

Baron Max

I'm laughing! The terrorists don't care about YOU or me, they care about the general media coverage and the sensationalism! Ah Baron, there was I thinking you were clever and twisted, but it turns out you are dumb and twisted. It's a disappointment. I think you really don't get it. You don't see the internal flaw in your statements?

So, MetaKron, you agree that if someone is not happy with the way things are in the world, then they should resort to blowing up things and killing people to get what they want????

Baron Max

You mean I shouldn't? Bush II does it, why shouldn't I?

What is a victory over terroism? Simple. It's just like a victory over the War on Drugs. It's just like the victory over the War on Porn. It's just like the victory on the War on Alcohol. It's just like the victory on the War on Copyright Infringements. It's just like the victory on the War of Religions.

Put simply, there's no such thing. It'll never end cause you can't stop it.

- N

What is a victory over terroism? Simple. It's just like a victory over the War on Drugs. It's just like the victory over the War on Porn. It's just like the victory on the War on Alcohol. It's just like the victory on the War on Copyright Infringements. It's just like the victory on the War of Religions.

Put simply, there's no such thing. It'll never end cause you can't stop it.

- N

Darn right.

These are wars that would have benefited the world greatly by having never been fought. All they do is make things worse. They are just another form of senseless jihad instigated by mad ayatollahs.

It was nothing but a political speach, get over it.

If you believe everything a politician says verbatim then you are doomed.

which terrorist group?

usually a terrorist wants freedom and land

...usually a terrorist wants freedom and land

No, you got that wrong. The terrorists want SOMEONE ELSE'S land and freedom!! There's a big, big difference, don't you see?

Baron Max

Well, Baron Max, you see, the problem is that the question you pose about kow-towing to terrorists, is the same question that a terrorist might pose about the United States. "Why should we kow-tow to a superpower? Look at the harm that can be done with a surgical strike into the heart of their fears and economy? And by what other means can we send a message to the cultural and economic imperialists?" So this is why the search for the roots of the problem must be pursued, and why Americans must be prepared for the possibility that their way of life, and the policies of their government, could be generating inequity and a sense of resentment. Not out of jealousy, which is a very Americo-centered prejudice, but out of a sense of actual threat. The possibility of this needs to be acknowledged and addressed.

So this is why the search for the roots of the problem must be pursued, ..., and the policies of their government, could be generating inequity and a sense of resentment.

And so, in retaliation, the terrorists blow up and kill their OWN people??

Why should we kow-tow to a superpower?

And so, in retaliation, the terrorists blow up and kill their OWN people??

And by what other means can we send a message to the cultural and economic imperialists?

Hey, I've got an idea! Let's kill off some of our OWN people ....that'll really get the message to the damned imperialists, won't it!

The possibility of this needs to be acknowledged and addressed.

So whenever a few criminals blow up some of their OWN people, we should do whatever they want? ...anyone who wants those in authority to listen to his grievances, should blow up some innocent people? Any time anyone has a problem, he should take the law into his own hands instead of a court of law?

And that is exactly the message that world opinion is sending to all people of the world ........look at the terrorists' actions, see how much their acts sway public opinion?! If you want someone to do what you want, blow up some innocent people and we(the world opinion) will be on your side! Forget courts, forget laws, forget "right n' wrong", just blow up some innocent people, then the world will listen to your issues.

Is that what you want? Is that what the world wants?

Baron Max

The terrorists aren't blowing up their own people. Those people are no longer their people -- they're treasonists as they're siding with the enemy.

If China invaded us and my neighbors were siding with the enemy, putting the resistance in jeopardy, I wouldn't hesitate to put a bullet in em. I wish I wouldn't have to and I wish the war wouldn't have started in the first place, but hey, war is hell.

- N

The Chinese anolgy is poor- being that we are leaving the country and not staying. If Saddam Hussien was my President and was systimaticly slaughtering Americans then by all means I would invite the Chinese in to save my country. I would not be a traitor in any aspect. These terrorists are power hungry sacks of shit that want to terrorize the people for their own political gain.

being that we are leaving the country and not staying

Oh man, if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell ya.

You haven't seen or heard of any long term plans for Iraq, eh? We're gonna be there for quite some time. I suppose all our military bases being built there are temporary, huh? And the new Iraqi army/police force are going to be trained well enough to guard all "our" oil wells too?

Even the Iraqi's that supposedly like us are gonna feel the same about us as Osama bin Laden and other Saudi Arabian's did when we kept our military presence in their country after the first Iraqi war. And well, look where THAT got us. American's don't learn from their mistakes because we feel we're so good that we don't repeat our mistakes and feel as if they were all some one-time fluke. It's gonna happen all over again.

If Saddam Hussien was my President and was systimaticly slaughtering Americans then by all means I would invite the Chinese in to save my country.

Well you're a fool then if you're allowing another nation to step foot on our soil and I'd shoot you on site for doing so. It would cause more harm than good and it wouldn't simply end with the Chinese leaving our nation how it was. More harm than good would be done and would result in many more civilian deaths. Tons of cities could be ruined just like in Iraq having to be rebuilt. Heck, what if they tried to change our way of lives to be more of a communist nation too? I'm sure the Iraqi's thought we'd be in and out of there with not much of a change to their daily lives. The only reason why we didn't leave the Iraqi's alone to have and solve their OWN civil war and uprising is because they have something we want -- oil -- so of course we're gonna involve ourselves to tap their resources.

Anyways, you won't have to worry about our president slaughtering our citizens, or at least not to an extent that we can't fix it ourselves without requiring China to come in and save us. Well, assuming we don't have more fascist liberals trying to disarm the citizens so that the government CAN easily abuse their power against us without much retaliation. That's the reason for our right to bear arms and it's a good thing our citizens are the most armed nation in the world. :D

These terrorists are power hungry sacks of shit that want to terrorize the people for their own political gain.

What political gain? You mean rather than having things set up similar to the laws of the invading force, they want it how it used to be? What's wrong with that? If China tried altering our government and laws to be more like theirs after invading, I'd resist and revolt to keep things how they were too.

- N

Victory over terrorism means simply no more terrorist attacks against the US or US interests. I wish he had the balls to declare war on Islamofascism [a group of people] rather than declaring war on a tactic. Regardless, Bush believes the best way to achieve this is to alter the nature of the governments in the middle east. He also believes it's better to keep these savages busy fighting in their homeland so they're too busy to plan and execute attacks in the US.

hey about the right to bear arms, if one of you finally has the guts to kill bush wouldnt you be able to point to the reasons behind that right and not get procicuted?

hey about the right to bear arms, if one of you finally has the guts to kill bush wouldnt you be able to point to the reasons behind that right and not get procicuted?

Huh???

The right to bear arms is not the same as the right to commit murder. Where and how did you come up with that one, Asquard? ...LOL!

Baron Max

hey about the right to bear arms, if one of you finally has the guts to kill bush wouldnt you be able to point to the reasons behind that right and not get procicuted?

Unfortunately, civilians aren't allowed to use the excuse of "pre-emptive strikes". :(

- N

The war on terrorism is in actuality a war on Islam. It may not be in our political interests to call it as such, and it may not be the direction of our administration to fight against Islam as a force, but indeed the "terrorists" see it just as such. If you read the speeches put out by Bin Laden or Zarqawi, it is made very clear that our suport of Israel is in direct opposition to Islam.

It should be no surprise that Islam has bloody borders, it seems that all nations situated next to an Islamic nation have felt the blow of "terrorism". When will we begin to realize how seriously insane middle eastern religions are and wake up to the extreme nature of their holy books?

Militant islam anyway. I don't think anyone gives a shit if a bunch of guys lie on the ground, pointing all in one direction, five times a day. Most people do have a problem with having airplanes crash into their buildings or have their busses explode infront of elementary schools or such.

I don't think anyone gives a shit if a bunch of guys lie on the ground, pointing all in one direction, five times a day

i dunno..........health and safety.on my keyboard at work it actually says "use of a keyboard may cause serious injury or illness,consult the user guide before proceeding"..................WTF?!ah well.

"No, you got that wrong. The terrorists want SOMEONE ELSE'S land and freedom!! There's a big, big difference, don't you see?"

sinn fein (irish) has long been considered a terrorist group by most people, and yet, they fought to remove the british from ireland

what about the iraqi 'terrorists' who are fighting to remove american soldiers from iraq?

or the palestinian 'terrorists' that fought to remove the israelis from land that they used to own

its not murder to protect the bill of rights is it?

the right to a speedy trial for example should be enough (cuba, herd of it?)
the right to be judged by a jury of your peers?
the right to be presumed innocent?

its not premptive if its already and still happerning is it?

what about the iraqi 'terrorists' who are fighting to remove american soldiers from iraq?

Then why are they killing Iraqi citizens? Why have the terrorists actually declared war on the Shiites? Why do they keep killing Shiites and Kurds? Why are the terrorists, only some 2,500 deranged individuals, trying to keep the millions of innocent Iraqis from voting in the coming elections?

How is it that you think that just a paltry FEW people should be permitted to tell the greater majority what they should and shouldn't do? Do you really feel that the few, only some 2,500 terrorists, speak for the entire Iraqi population of some 12 million?

What this seems to me is something like the Ku Klux Klan fighting a terrorist war against the USA and you agreeing with their efforts!! ...and considering that the KKK speak for the entire nation!! ...LOL!

or the palestinian 'terrorists' that fought to remove the israelis from land that they used to own

The key word there is "used to own". In 1948 or so, the world court organizations gave that land to the Israelis and in several legal court actions, the UN and other such organizations of world leaders upheld that partitioning in courts of law. The Palestinians no longer own that land and it's been determined legally several times.

Baron Max

What is a total victory of terrorism

The end of religion and the dawn of a secular world. I guess between a few hundred years to a few thousand, assuming no mass extinctions.

Then why are they killing Iraqi citizens?

Same as why we kill Iraqi civilians. Collateral damage.

Perhaps if we give the "terrorists" some precision bombs rather than having them make their own crude ones that go boom, less civilians would die? Ya gotta fight with whatever you have on hand. They're no army so they're more crude in their fighting methods.

C'mon, help the civilians and let's give the "terrorists" some precision bombs so they can fight with more honor and kill less innocent civilians. Err wait, even with our advanced technology, us American's have killed more Iraqi civilians than the "terrorists".

- N

Yeah. But the difference is that we hit civilians accedentally while terrorists make civilians their primary target. American troops don't think, 'hey, lets go blow up an elementary school today and see how many children we can kill'.

Most factions are terrorists or no factions are terrorists. It's just political people fighting dirty.

Bin Laden, the Bush team, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, varius Iraqi Shite factions, various temporarily allied Kurdish factions, Varius Suni fashions, the old Baath ruling structure, Iraqi Turkoman factions, who who knows how many more are probably all engaging in acts against each other in Iraq that could be called terrorism. Each faction wants as much influence and control over the future Iraq for as long as possible and they won't think twice about killing whoever gets in their way. It has always been like this throughout the history of humanity. Even humanity's distant cousins, Jane Goodall's chimpanzees have been observed practicing what could be called terrorism to achieve what could be called political goals. Religious extremism is just twisted politics mixed with superstition and mental illness. To hell with all of them.

American troops don't think, 'hey, lets go blow up an elementary school today and see how many children we can kill'.

"Hey, I'm going to bomb that heavily populated city. Civilians are bound to die, but oh well. It's just an 'accident' (despite the fact that I'm quite aware that they will die if I bomb that city."

Yeah. But the difference is that we hit civilians accedentally while terrorists make civilians their primary target. American troops don't think, 'hey, lets go blow up an elementary school today and see how many children we can kill'.

Accidents? Yeah right. We know full well civilians are going to die when we do bombing raids and we continue with it because it's mere "collateral damage" and somehow makes it a-okay.

And even if they WERE all accidents and we didn't bomb areas knowing full well which civilians are gonna die, that makes us SLOPPY AS HELL. We have precision bombs and terrorists have crude bombs yet we kill more civilians than they do! What does that say about us?

Go ahead and make up candy-coated reasons and fancy words to make us not sound as bad as the "other side". People with a train of thought like that would be more respected if they just had the balls to admit the wrong-doings rather than being a copout and hiding behind justifiable terminology. Heck, even being a so-called "evil" person would be more respected if they're one to flat out admit they're killing people intentionally rather than being a chicken-shit liar.

There's nothing worse or more damaging than a liar.

- N

Have you perhaps considered the notion that the moment an invidual chooses to become a terrorist/jihadist or are participating in a violent political group or cause they are gambling on the lives of their families, people, and nations? Iraq suffers collateral death because it is Iraq and as a nation ruled by a sadistic dictator and now streets full of guerillas that is the nature of the situation it has been placed in. When you put on a front that threatens a superpower with a big army you are playing with fire and everyone and everything in your country might have to feel the heat. It is the same here in the USA. We made the choice to support Israel and get our hands dirty in the middle east so we put our citizens at risk and sure enough they got killed on Sept. 11th. That is the nature of ideological conflict.

Accidents? Yeah right. We know full well civilians are going to die when we do bombing raids and we continue with it because it's mere "collateral damage" and somehow makes it a-okay.
That argument is total bullshit. We don't send out bombers with schoolchildren as targets, we don't send soldiers into houses to seek out and kill children [as the cowardly islamic jihadists do] Intent matters. It is what seperates the good guys from the bad. Otherwise you are essentially arguing for pacifism, which is basically a blank check for anyone willing to resort to violence.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

At the end of the day when the entire charade is over we can then maybe start to change the world, maybe not to something extra special but at least maybe something better. We can start by building poor old Iraq. I really don’t care what happens to be honest with you, not at the moment. Every politician is claiming they never sanctioned the war in Iraq but its all a charade, even John Kerry and his likes knew about the war before it happened, I mean its war we are talking about here but somehow the media has portrayed it as a walk in the park, kudus to the media. My palaver is I can’t help wondering what’s to become of Iraq in socio-economic terms, but honestly I really don’t care about that either. Terrorism is just synonym for violence and unconstructive behavior and it has been going on for eons, so we all should already know the many ways of curbing it. But in the progressive movement to eradicate violence the one's with guns are the terrorist and the one's with the the biggest guns are the biggest terrorist. Guns are a form of power and power is nothing without control. When we make this guns my guess is not to collect dust on the shelves.Nonetheless in my opinion the biggest terrorist tool is the media

Accidents? Yeah right. We know full well civilians are going to die when we do bombing raids and we continue with it because it's mere "collateral damage" and somehow makes it a-okay.
”
That argument is total bullshit. We don't send out bombers with schoolchildren as targets, we don't send soldiers into houses to seek out and kill children [as the cowardly islamic jihadists do] Intent matters. It is what seperates the good guys from the bad. Otherwise you are essentially arguing for pacifism, which is basically a blank check for anyone willing to resort to violence.

Just because we don't send bombs and whatnot specifically towards innocent civilians, it doesn't mean we don't kill them or make the choice of killing them knowing full well they are going to die during something such as an important target. It's called collateral damage. If Osama bin Laden and 500 terrorists are shelled up in a building with 100 innocent babies, you don't think we wouldn't just obliterate that whole building knowing those babies are in there? That place would be blown up in a heartbeat!

And I'm not arguing for pacifism. I have no problem with us killing innocents as I full know well that it's collateral damage. You guys are the ones trying to make it sound candy-coated as if we don't do that kinda stuff. You're the ones with the blinders on. I'm not arguing for pacifism, I'm arguing to quit being bullshitters with the rose-colored glasses on calling the other side horrible people for killing innocents when we do the exact same thing.

The end result is the same, we wind up killing lots of civilians. How we do it doesn't really matter. Do you think the Iraqi family that loses their children is going to care whether a terrorist blew them up or an American bomb did? Nope. They're gonna wage war regardless. Remember, we've killed more innocent civilians than the insurgency has. What is worse? A few insurgents killing bystanders while trying to defend their country or an invading force killing a crapload more bystanders? Again, how they died is mere moral symantics. None of that matters, only the end result of death does. Now weight the sides and their intentions without playing the "oh we're so wonderful and the others are so bad" rose-colored, propogandic routine.

- N

I agree - get the rose-coloured glasses off.

Terrorism and oppression are the same, but for a victory over terrorism - oppression must end first. It is a vicious circle that must be broken in order for peace.

:rolleyes: a win win situation!

"Well you're a fool then if you're allowing another nation to step foot on our soil and I'd shoot you on site for doing so. It would cause more harm than good and it wouldn't simply end with the Chinese leaving our nation how it was. More harm than good would be done and would result in many more civilian deaths."

Wow, I guess its a good thing that we stood around and let Stalin kill 50,000,000 of his own people. Im sure that the average russian was thinking "I love Stalin. If those Americans come and kill him i'll be so pissed."

If we had a Stalin of our own who was systimaticly killing Millions of Americans then I would shoot YOU for not letting someone get rid of his ass. And here I thought being Patriotic was being loyal to your country and not to your leader.

OK Crazy drinker, what would you do if the nation that hepled to place a Stalin in control of your country the comes into your country to take out the Stalin and replace him with a new Stalin?

Don't tell that's not what America's intentions are because what matters to the insurgents is not what america's intentions are but what they think America's intentions are. Not helping the Shiite rebellion after the first gulf war and picking known skunks Allawi and Chalabi for interim leaders were not acts that give the impression that the USA wanted a free Iraq. PNAC would be better served if Iraq apeared to be a democracy but was really under the control of the White House. The USA has talked about spreading democracy for fifty years but many times the USA crushed democracies. Trust must be earned.

So, what would you do if you believed that a nation has come and invaded your country to overthow the Stalin who has oppressed you and replace him with a new Stalin who will also oppress you?

A total victory of terrorism is Utopia.

actually, the average russian was thinking "i love stalin" and we probably would have been very pissed if those americans had come and killed him. ironic how history works. :rolleyes:

you really drink 151?

actually, the average russian was thinking "i love stalin" and we probably would have been very pissed if those americans had come and killed him. ironic how history works. :rolleyes:

you really drink 151?


Simplistically, in regards to Islamic terrorism....
Total victory is the abolishment of philosophy that makes Muslims think it is a godly duty to do harm to Christians and Jews. It is amazing that so many people crave death and destruction for a prophet--that they claim was better than Jesus--even though he showed up 500 years late.

Simplistically, in regards to Islamic terrorism....
Total victory is the abolishment of philosophy that makes Muslims think it is a godly duty to do harm to Christians and Jews. It is amazing that so many people crave death and destruction for a prophet--that they claim was better than Jesus--even though he showed up 500 years late.

Do you really think you know anything about the philosophies of the Islamic world? Or are you just talking that way because hating and slandering "the other" is normal instinctual human behavior?

This line: "philosophy that makes Muslims think it is a godly duty to do harm to Christians and Jews" that you wrote is total Bullshit. No such philosophy exists. Go read Bin Laden's writing and see what he was thinking. Godly duty to defend the Islamic world from attack is a different story. If you want to end Islamic terrorism you must end the perception that the Islamic world is under attack. The west gets blamed for the rotten governments of the Islamic world. We should get the hell out of their internal politics and let them kill each other without us taking sides in their internal politics.

If that means we lose the ability to cut off China's supply of oil without also cutting off our own supply of oil, then tough luck. PNAC's goals are too ambitious and will only leed to more enemies and terrorism against the USA and it's allies.

By Christopher Shea | July 3, 2005
Boston Globe

Four years ago, the late Susan Sontag was excoriated for arguing, in a brief New Yorker piece, that the attacks that brought down the World Trade Center were inspired not by hatred of ''civilization" or ''the free world" but rather by opposition to ''specific American alliances and actions." Today that argument--seen by hawks in those dark post-Sept. 11 days as treasonously empathetic--has become a commonplace in the latest political science work on terrorism.

No one, for example, is hurling charges of crypto-treason at Robert A. Pape, an associate professor of political science at the University of Chicago known for hard-nosed studies of air power in wartime. But Pape's new book, ''Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism" (Random House), which grew out of a much-cited 2003 article in the American Political Science Review, is prime example of the mainstreaming of Sontag's once-taboo view. ''Suicide terrorism is a response to occupation," Pape says in a phone interview. ''Islamic fundamentalism has very little to do with it."

''Dying to Win" draws on a thorough database of all suicide attacks recorded since the contemporary practice was born during the Lebanese civil war in the early 1980s: a total of 315 incidents through 2003, involving 462 suicidal attackers. Of the 384 attackers for whom Pape has data, who committed their deeds in such danger zones as Sri Lanka (where the decidedly non-fundamentalist, quasi-Marxist Tamil Tigers have used suicide attacks since 1987 in their fight for a Tamil homeland), Israel, Chechnya, Iraq, and New York, only 43 percent came from religiously affiliated groups. The balance, 57 percent, came from secular groups. Strikingly, during the Lebanese civil war, he says, some 70 percent of suicide attackers were Christians (though members of secular groups).

The thrust of his argument is that suicide terrorism is an eminently rational strategy. Everywhere it has been used, the countries that face it make concessions: The United States left Lebanon; Israel withdrew from Lebanon and now (much of) the West Bank; and Sri Lanka gave the Tamils a semiautonomous state.

Since occupation spurs terrorism, Pape concludes that America should ''expeditiously" (but not recklessly) withdraw troops from Iraq. It should also reduce its energy dependence on the Middle East, refrain from posting troops in the Gulf States, and return to a strategy of balancing the Middle Eastern countries against one another from afar--policy prescriptions that have inspired criticism apart from his social science. (''Wouldn't [Pape's recommendations] be the ultimate concession to the suicide strategy?" Martin Kramer, a specialist in Middle Eastern studies, asked after the 2003 article appeared.)

In the views of some critics, Pape's original article erred by dismissing all talk of religious or cultural factors in suicide bombings. If suicide attacks were a universally rational weapon of the weak, the critics argued, we would see them everywhere--and we don't. In fact, in a fascinating contribution to the new essay collection ''Making Sense of Suicide Missions" (Oxford), the Yale political scientist Stathis Kalyvas and a Spanish colleague, Ignacio Sanchez Cuenca, point out that FARC, the Columbian rebel group, once hatched a plan to fly a plane into that country's presidential palace but could find no willing pilot, even after dangling an offer of $2 million for the pilot's family. In addition, the Basque group ETA has rejected offers from its members to blow themselves up for the cause.

But in the book, Pape reconsiders those cultural factors: Suicide bombing, he now writes, is most likely to happen when the occupying force and the ''occupied" insurgents are from different religious backgrounds. (The Tamil minority in Sri Lanka are mostly Hindu and Christian; the Sinhalese majority are Buddhists.)

Research by other scholars backs up this point. David Laitin, a Stanford University expert on civil wars, and Eli Berman, an economist at the University of California at San Diego, have demonstrated that while only 18 percent of the 114 civil wars since 1945 have pitted members of one religious group against another, fully 90 percent of suicide attacks take place in inter-religious conflicts.

Laitin and Berman, too, view suicide terrorism as following impeccable game-theory logic: When your targets are ''hard" and the enemy is wealthy, well armed, and possessed of good intelligence, they write, suicide bombing begins to make sense as a strategy.

However, Diego Gambetta, an Oxford University sociologist and the editor of ''Making Sense of Suicide Missions," thinks these claims of rationality among self-immolators go a bit too far. First, do the attacks achieve as much as Pape contends? Israel had already committed to pulling out of the West Bank under the Oslo accords when a fresh wave of attacks came in 1994 and 1995. Far from causing the withdrawal, he argues, the attacks may in fact have heightened Israeli resistance to it.

Then there's the question of Islam. There may be non-Islamic suicide bombers, Gambetta writes. But ''we do not have even a single case of a non-Islamic faith justifying" suicide missions.

Gambetta makes a tentative cultural-historical argument, tracing the suicidal impulse in the Middle East back to the Iran-Iraq war, when thousands of fundamentalist Iranian soldiers marched into certain death against Iraqi tank formations. That strain of self-sacrifice then spread into Lebanon and Palestine and now Iraq, through a badly understood dynamic.

Conflicting theories aside, social scientists have made strides in understanding suicide bombers. Once considered the dregs of the earth (poor, uneducated, sexually starved), they have been shown--by Claude Berrebi, of the RAND Institute, among others--to be, on average, better educated and better off than their countrymen. Nevertheless, all the work on suicide terrorism has one major, merciful shortcoming: sample size. ''No matter how you count terrorist attacks, we are still well short of 1,000 of these episodes" since 1980, Gambetta says. Hard as it is to believe amid the grim daily dispatches from Iraq, suicide bombing remains, among the infinite numbers of ways humans cause bloodshed, exceedingly rare.

Abolish gun makers. Thats victory over terrorism. With guns comes balls and ambitions supervised, monitored, and payed for by the devil.

Abolish gun makers.

And so the terrorists simply resort to gunpowder and explosives? Or do you want to abolish those, too? If so, then they'll begin to use fertilizer and fuel oil for bombs. Or do you want to abolish those, too? If so, then they'll start using their swords. Or do you want to abolish those, too? If so, then they'll start using clubs and stones. And then you'll abolish clubs and stones?????

If you "abolish" guns, what do you do with all of the existing guns? Did you know that in Nepal, the "communist insurgents" are still using guns that were used in World War ONE? Yes, that's NOT a typo ...World War I guns. Now what?

I'd also like to know just who in hell is going to make all the terrorists and such give up their guns? And if they can do that, then why don't they do it now for ONLY the terrorists?

I'd suggest that you rethink your foolish, unworkable ideas. Anyone can say anything ....but that surely don't keep people from making stupid, idiotic suggestions, does it? ..LOL!

Baron Max

LOL. Okay lets start with the U.S. What gave the country the zeal to approach Iraq, was it the will and spirit of freedom?LOL Many invasions from history happened because one guy was a threat to the other in terms of power. And what is power? You can dribble yourself with all sorts of ideology all day but power is and has always been basicaly weapons, both in ideas and equipment. Think about it, if I want to get rid of someone, which is a thought we all have from time to time, the best impetus and inspiration is some sort of weapon. There is no doubt in my mind that with great power comes great ambition and control, in fact power is "NOTHING" without control. Abolishing guns won't stop terrorism if you consider 911 style attacks but it will certainly curb it, because an aeroplane is always better than a nuclear device. Weapons fall into the groups of ideas fabricated to sustain an individual or society. Religion, guns, even machinery were all initialy made to help make our life easier. However we became too pampered and things like stress became too overbearing, thus we have wars and terrorism today. If you look at these inventions clearfuly you will see that like the internet they only shape further ideas and mold the "individual" apart from the crowd, which is may I say...the foundations for radicalism and terrorism.

Okay, Reject, let's abolish anything and everything that you want. .....NOW... just how the fuck are you going to do something so fuckin' stupid??? Just who is going to have the power to do it? And will you trust anyone with that amount of power?

Ye're just spouting bullshit for the sake of spouting bullshit ....there is no amount of thinking that went into either of your posts. Try thinking for a change, your posts might actually have some meaning.

Baron Max

All that hoopla aside. Lets assume nuclear weapons were legal like your everyday hand gun. One day some ass wipe feeling frustrated launches a big one right in the middle of the earth and destroys every living human. That's is terrorism against mankind and it doesn't get more terroristical than that my friend. Russia by itself is able to accomplish this and you think I have no reason to think weapons makers are the greatest terrorist?

Well, Reject, I ain't talkin' to you no more ......ye're just spouting bullshit for the sake of typiing bullshit.

Have a nice evening,

Baron Max

Listen, weapon makers have already screwed us up. Like they say " if you build it, they shall come". Its one of those things too screwed up to undo so we just put our efforts on all other things instead. Okay check this out, the U.S spends billions on defence each freakin year. If you divert that money to welfare and other ideas it will at least sound better on paper for the sake of arguement. Unfortunately someone some where is sleeping hugry and homeless because of these results, which itself is terrorism. Don't get me wrong I am a war buff, I have read many papers on wars, and in fact will like a major war in my life time, but this is my view.

Okay, let's go shoot all weapon makers. Satisfied now?

Baron Max

.just how the fuck are you going to do something so fuckin' stupid??? Just who is going to have the power to do it? And will you trust anyone with that amount of power?

..I am lost. Why are you attacking me like I am mad. Anyway we went after Saddam because of "WMDs" right? So why can't we take an extensive action by dismantling all major weapons and explosives. Of cause I know my idea may not be feasible and sounds like something from a dream paradise but that does not mean weapons are not the biggest terrorist. Okay what will you say the answer is? Is the answer religion, politics, cultures, reformation, education, structure, constitution, culture, art? All these sounds harmless till someone gets frustrated and decides enough is enough. Besides we need all these cultures and ideas as well since we are still human, just as we inevitably need weapons to destroy or rule each other. So I picked the greater of all the evils, which is power or weapons. I would have said money but abolishing money will be madness.

I know.

Baron Max

Also killing someone is now a pull of the trigger. What ever happened to getting on your knees and doing the dirty work? Fulfilling your aim. Thats what I call killing. Pulling a trigger takes the humanity away from killing, which in turn takes the humanity away from life. No doubt weapons are the biggest terrorists.

Iran does need protection from the other Rogue States but we can't trust Iran to behave well with WMD. But we also can't trust Bush to behave well with WMD. The hypocrisy of leaving Bush with WMD while denying Iran is ugly. We need to deny Iran Nukes while giving them the security that they would have if they had nukes.

And this situation will repeat over and over until a nuclear war takes place or until the WMDs are not in the hands of people like Bush and governments like Iran. Terrorism is not much different. Until democracy replaces RealPolitik terrorism will always be the last tool in the arsenal of the losers at RealPolitik.

We need a limmited world government with a military to end war and keep WMDs out of the hands of Rogue states like Iran, the USA ,Pakistan, India, Israel, China, Rusia, the UK and France. The obstacle is how do we assure wealthy nations that the world government won't be willing or able to steal from the rich and give to themselves or the poor.




.

Anyway we went after Saddam because of "WMDs" right?

No, that was just the BS P.R. reason for the war. PNAC desire that the USA seize the unipolar moment is why the USA invaded Iraq. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

Yes, we need to create a state to police the world. We need a single totaly militaria state where all major destructive guns and weapons of the world are kept, where all its citizens are military men, women, and children. Kind of like the police state of ancient Greece;Sparta, only absolutely no civilian residency. Thats the only way we can stop monopoly, control, greed, and unilateral power. Shit like this is what the UN should be discussing instead of hoarding funds from here and there.

The problem with the UN is that the corrupt nation states spread their corruption into the UN. The five veto holding members will veto anything that interferes with their nasty plans.

The problem with the UN is that the corrupt nation states spread their corruption into the UN. The five veto holding members will veto anything that interferes with their nasty plans.

Well, ye're right, of course, but it's not just a few member nations or a few of the representatives .....they're all politicians, which almost means that they're corrupt "from birth"!

And, seriously, one of the things that so many people fail to see or understand is that we're discussing humans!!!! Humans are capable of almost anything, any type of criminal activity, any type of corruption, any type of nasty actions, ....., all of which should tell us/show us that to trust anyone with anything is a bad mistake!

Baron Max