Justification and conditions regarding suicide missions

[randolph85]

The Soviet Army of 80's vs Ak47 wielding Afghans...the US/NATO army of 2010 vs the same rusted AK47 wielding Afghans. Is that a fair comparison?

yes it is, except soviets caused far more civilian casualties because they didn't have the media on their ass or precision weapons, not that killing more civilians would of mattered to them anyways.

as shown today, bombs still blow up military vehicles. we are not talking about warfare between hundreds of years, but just a few decades.

here is a good book which shows what some good tactics can accomplish in the field with some smarts and patience. it certainly beats the talib tactic of firing mortars in the direction of a base that has never proven to be effective while exposing ur position and getting wiped out by the response. or the hilarious tactic of a few dozen fighters rushing a base hopelessly and getting wiped out.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

What is the justification for it and what are the conditions? I am asking from those who support it or deem it lawful.

Please don't turn this into another personal attacks thread or secular vs religious. Stay on topic.

Ill hand you reading assignments, from a non expert (me) on the topics of war and such things.

Regarding the religious debate and the Islamic judicial references, here you go. The debate centers around the fatwas of Qardawi. This should be a reasonable source since SXE decries wahhabits and peninsulaists (Saudi scholars), and Qardawi falls into neither of these camps:

http://www.meforum.org/530/must-inno...ic-debate-over
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yusuf_al-Qaradawi


Folks here are creating a false dichotomy, in my opinion, between the Russian Afghan War and the American Afghan War.

1. Paul Refsdahl, in his documentary on the Taliban, seen as the most unbiased piece done, comments that the Muj fighters in the 80s had equipment up to par and that Commander Dauran and his fighters had old weaponry.

2.
Now despite my respect for SXE and Randolph, I must present the reason I disagree with their non evidence based assessments. Their conclusions are not at all driven by actual ground level metrics.

The dramatic assymetry between the insurgents and the occupier force can be demonstrated by the number of Lee Enfield rifles being discovered on the battlefield. The Lee Enfield is a British Era weapon to drive home the point.

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/arti...-1-22-2009.asp

If one does not want to accept strategypage's musings, then the NY Times assessment should suffice:

http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/...an-gun-locker/

"Insurgents in Helmand Province seem to have used bolt-action rifles more than in many regions of Afghanistan. Whether this indicates a pressure on the supply of assault rifles and their ammunition or a preference for the longer effective ranges of Lee-Enfield and Mosin-Nagant rifles is not clear. But the longer range of bolt-action rifles compared with assault rifles, and their relative abundance in Helmand Province, is a reason this particular acreage of Afghanistan has a reputation as being plagued by a more dangerous set of Afghan marksmen, and even a few snipers, as seen in this video. For those who have been under fire in Helmand, finding that a large fraction of captured rifles are Lee-Enfields or Mosin-Nagants is not surprising. This battalion’s battlefield collections fit its Marines’ experiences on patrol."

Lest Randolph or SXE attempt to harp on the increased accuracy of the Lee Enfield, I would say that they are sorely missing the point.

Here is an example from video, via the Times of the sort of tactic they are advocating. One must remember that in the Russian-Afghan war, AK47s abounded and they decreased accuracy. Initially, the rapid fire sequence would cause the muzzle to rise and point to the sky in a display of idiocy (this occured per the conservational laws of physics and is the reason why the M16 has a rapid fire sequence that terminates after a few bullets), and the single shot itself is also not as accurate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzzle_rise

Nonetheless, a generation of fighters was trained on these easy to manufacture, easily imitated, and cheap weapons.

http://video.nytimes.com/video/2010/...at-matter.html

This video more than adequately proves the point the strategist makes in the first article:

"In the last year, NATO units in southern Afghanistan estimate there has been a 25 percent increase in sniping incidents. This is not seen as a major danger. NATO troops wear protective bests and helmets that can stop bullets fired at long range, making it very frustrating for the Taliban shooters trying to hit a distant target in a vulnerable spot."

Despite the fact that 1 in a group of say 100 Talibs is sniper trained, he merely was able to cause his American counterpart (where a majority are trained to fire with accuracy) a shoulder injury with a good shot.

Why are 99/100 Talibs not sniper quality? Anyone who has ever fired a pistol and travelled to Afghanistan knows the answer to that question. There is no Wal Mart Wana or Wal Mart Kandahar with massive rounds of ammo available cheaply. The cost of ammo to waste to utilize in training is just too great in such settings. The gunsmiths of dar adam would not able to and are not able to churn out the sufficient number of bullets to ensure this level of lethal accuracy training. The average number of shots fired by an American trained policeman in city violence situations is 3-4 rounds.

http://www.virginiacops.org/articles...ing/combat.htm

So we have an evidence based situation: The Talib is equipped with an AK and possibly a Lee Enfield. The AK is less accurate, and the old AKs lack the rapid fire sequence that terminates and allows for some level of increased accuracy.

3. Why does the phemomena occur? Let us consult evidence. The doyen of suicide terror analysis is Robert Pape, of Univ Of Chicago. He wrote a text that is now a classic, called Dying to Win, consulted by Peters, Bergen, Scheuer, and a host of others. He presents a lucid set of conclusions regarding this phenomena and why it occurs.

SXE and Randolph have to conclusively prove the following motif for me to even take their argument at face value:

War being won ---> Taliban resort to suicide attacks ---> now war being lost because of bad strategy (i.e. namely suicide attacks and this strategy could have been averted. This is their assertion... but there is little evidence to back up the claim.

Instead, Pape is arguing the following, with evidence basis, rather effectively:

Vastly assymetric warfare (e.g. Afghanistan) ---> stunning losses and devastation ---> adoption of bare bones approach (Lee Enfield rifes) ---> suicide attacks included in arsenal ---> outcome pending

http://books.google.com/books/about/...d=SOlnH3f_dXwC

Here are some of Pape's evidence based assessments:

"Ninety-five percent of suicide terrorist attacks occur as part of coherent campaigns organized by large militant organizations with significant public support."

"Despite their rhetoric, democracies–including the United States–have routinely made concessions to suicide terrorists. Suicide terrorism is on the rise because terrorists have learned that it’s effective."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Pape

Here is an interview where Pape goes into some actual metrics:

http://www.theamericanconservative.c.../jul/18/00017/

Here is a scholarly review by Pape, and his commentary is:
"The main reason that suicide terrorism is growing is
that terrorists have learned that it works."

Pape's conclusions regarding the causal factor:?

"It is a last-resort strategy of the weak; its purpose to use one’s body as a deadly weapon in order to coerce the opposing society to pressure its government into changing military policies. The attacks succeed not only by destroying their targets, but by convincing the opposing

society that it is vulnerable to more attacks
in the future."

More evidence:

"The data in Dying to Win, covering 1980 to 2001,

documented 315 suicide attacks in all. By the summer of 2008 the total had grown to over 1,550. In 2001, there were 50 attacks; in 2008, there were 500. Iraq is the largest campaign, with 856 attacks; Afghanistan comes next, with 316. The popularity of suicide terrorism is growing as a result of ground operations, Pape maintains: 89 percent of all suicide terrorism around the world since the Iraq war is the direct result of troops on the ground. His data show that of nearly 1,600 suicide attacks, 95 percent are against

all foreign occupying forces, with 90 percent of those against just U.S. forces. “This is a very bad thing,” he believes"

And the stunning conclusion regarding the Pashtun regions???:

"Today, Pape is focused on Afghanistan and, again, the key objective must be to reduce land forces. He sees the rise of attacks throughout Afghanistan as the direct result of the United States’ increasing
occupation of the Pashtun homeland. For the first couple of years of our occupation of Afghanistan, we stayed in Kabul. Then we began occupying
the rest of the country in stages, reaching southern and eastern Afghanistan in late 2005, and bringing on a surge of suicide bombings. “As we move to the border of Pakistan, we’re seeing more of
the same,” he warns. “Seventy-five percent of attacks have been where there are Pakistani ground troops—our surrogate (PAGE 7).”

* Special note- Pape's EVIDENCE based, well cited work devastates the Pakistani conspiracy theories with that one sentence alone... the MAJORITY of suicide attacks in pashtun regions have hit in the Pashtun belt, across the border at Pakistani posts.

This correlates closely with Matt Hoh's assessment on the Afghan side of the border:

"Suicide attacks, IEDs, military and civilian dead or wounded—all rise commensuratelywith eachincrease in foreign troop or Afghan government presence. We misunderstand many ofthecauses of support for the Taliban. They didn’t wear sandwich boards or hand out pamphlets to win people. They are the Pashtuns. Most don’t want to rule the country. They just want to get rid of the occupiers."

The causal force behind this phenomena is echoed in Barkawi's of Cambridge's essay:

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth...424785830.html

"Asymmetric warfare is the result of conflict between the powerful and the powerless, reinforcing a cycle of violence."

The bottom line?

The phenomena of suicide attacks in the NWFP and Afghanistan is a modality of assymetric warfare brought on by the gross imbalance between the occupier power and the occupied people (its the effect, not the cause - per Barkawi); its effectiveness, per the hard evidence, is proven in instances of accomplishing short term goals (per Pape) but not long term strategic goals or ones that would cause the power on the recieving end to abandon crucial priorities (per Pape); its place in Islamic jurisprudence is under debate with Saudi scholars actually CONDEMNING it and Qardawi stating its acceptable nature in occupied settings. It is not a Pakistani tactic, and was not invented by Pakistanis... and the Pakistani proxies soldiers themselves wearing uniforms have been on the recieving end of the majority of attacks in the Pashtun belt (Pape per the Carnegie paper).

[Alchemist]

yes it is, except soviets caused far more civilian casualties because they didn't have the media on their ass or precision weapons, not that killing more civilians would of mattered to them anyways.

How much more? A few thousands?

And what media are you talking about? The embedded journalists of CNN and Al Jazeera that regurjitate Pentagon propaganda in regards to civilian deaths? Then how would you know how many Afghans died at the hands of soviets if there wasn't press coverage of it? In any case, don't you hear stories of night raids, torture detention centres, drone attacks, "kill teams"...helicopters shooting down children for sports...just recently?

"precision weapons" aka "smart bombs"? An Oxymoron. Don't fall for the hype.

as shown today, bombs still blow up military vehicles. we are not talking about warfare between hundreds of years, but just a few decades.

Just a few decades?
Were there cell phones in the 80s? Internet? Sophisticated GPS satellite systems with camera's of all kinds that could detect movements within feets? You are comparing atari with ps3....see the difference?

Lee Enfield - produced in 1895.... not a 100 years difference you say?

here is a good book which shows what some good tactics can accomplish in the field with some smarts and patience. it certainly beats the talib tactic of firing mortars in the direction of a base that has never proven to be effective while exposing ur position and getting wiped out by the response. or the hilarious tactic of a few dozen fighters rushing a base hopelessly and getting wiped out.

rrrriight...a book that tells stories of mujahideen fighting soviets written by americans that work for the US army.

[Soldat_Amir]

There is no justification in suicide bombing. Its immoral and an act that results in mass number of bystanders/innocent people being killed.

A Suicide bomber has no set target, he/she only wants to kill everyone.

Its not a matter of it being justified, its the matter of how the person is trained to blow him/herself up.

They are told, as I stated on my article in regards to "Arab terror on Pashtun land" that they will see women(hooris) in paradise waiting for them, they will enter paradise and meet their fate with 72 virgins, they are told to never concern themselves with the innocent killed because they are "Jannat Farus".

This is where the problem lies, Suicide bombing in the Pashtun belt is an imported ideology/tactic from the sands of Arabia, as a result of this import, our people are downtrodden and degraded to the view of the world and society as a whole.

Another consequence is the following please read

Insurgents purchasing suicide bombers

Insurgents

Suiciding bombings in the name of Islam are toxic and counter productive, like how we have seen with the constant suicide bombing of Pir shrines, mosques that are attended by Shia's and Sufis.

Not only this, "MOST" of the cases of "wannabe suicide bombers or those caught due to a dysfunctional suicide vest" have been children or young men, as they are most victim to Suicide bombing trainers.

Suicide bombing is immoral, the way they train them is downgrading and the result and impact of a Suicide bomber is well documented as being the biggest cause of civilian killings.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

There is no justification in suicide bombing. Its immoral and an act that results in mass number of bystanders/innocent people being killed.

A Suicide bomber has no set target, he/she only wants to kill everyone.

Its not a matter of it being justified, its the matter of how the person is trained to blow him/herself up.

They are told, as I stated on my article in regards to "Arab terror on Pashtun land" that they will see women(hooris) in paradise waiting for them, they will enter paradise and meet their fate with 72 virgins, they are told to never concern themselves with the innocent killed because they are "Jannat Farus".

This is where the problem lies, Suicide bombing in the Pashtun belt is an imported ideology/tactic from the sands of Arabia, as a result of this import, our people are downtrodden and degraded to the view of the world and society as a whole.

Another consequence is the following please read

Insurgents purchasing suicide bombers

Insurgents

Suiciding bombings in the name of Islam are toxic and counter productive, like how we have seen with the constant suicide bombing of Pir shrines, mosques that are attended by Shia's and Sufis.

Not only this, "MOST" of the cases of "wannabe suicide bombers or those caught due to a dysfunctional suicide vest" have been children or young men, as they are most victim to Suicide bombing trainers.

Suicide bombing is immoral, the way they train them is downgrading and the result and impact of a Suicide bomber is well documented as being the biggest cause of civilian killings.

Sorry my friend, you trade the forest for the trees. The immorality of it lies separate from its utility as a tactic. War itself is immoral and the majority of the folks who perish these days are civilians. In the Libyan war for instance, or the Iraq war, the civlian to governmental or Baath Party workers killed ratio is severe. For that matter, you support the Russian reinvasion of Chechnya, yet that resulted in even more civilian casulaties.

You have not sufficiently addressed the issues above in regard to why the tactic is initiated (dramatic assymetry) and what sustains it (NATO presence) as per the data.

Its basically like two guys getting into a fight. The first guy is a big brawny bully in the 9th grade with brass knuckles and the second guy is a wirey 5th grader who just has stamina. The 5th grader and his friends (OBL) were minding their own business in their own countries until the 9th grader with brass knuckles came along and set up shop in one 5th grader's country (OBL) to fight another rival bully (Saddam) and wouldnt leave. Now, the 5th grader (the Taliban or insurgency or whatever) decided he was going to have to rely on crotch punching. The Bully and his supporters cannot just mozy in and say "Oh yeah, and no crotch punch allowed because its a girly move." Thats like telling the 5th grader either A) become the bully's b-itch or B) Accept he is going to be getting beat down a set of brass knuckles and some broken bones.

[ScimitarXEdge]

yes it is, except soviets caused far more civilian casualties because they didn't have the media on their ass or precision weapons, not that killing more civilians would of mattered to them anyways.

as shown today, bombs still blow up military vehicles. we are not talking about warfare between hundreds of years, but just a few decades.

here is a good book which shows what some good tactics can accomplish in the field with some smarts and patience. it certainly beats the talib tactic of firing mortars in the direction of a base that has never proven to be effective while exposing ur position and getting wiped out by the response. or the hilarious tactic of a few dozen fighters rushing a base hopelessly and getting wiped out.

nice job debunking the excuses and scapegoats used to justify suicide bombing tactics in Afghanistan

if the Mujahideen in the 80's could do it without such tactics, so can the so called Insurgents, they only logical reason why they can't or won't is because their goal isn't for the welfare of the people.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

nice job debunking the excuses and scapegoats used to justify suicide bombing tactics in Afghanistan

if the Mujahideen in the 80's could do it without such tactics, so can the so called Insurgents, they only logical reason why they can't or won't is because their goal isn't for the welfare of the people.

Apples and oranges. Two entirely different wars. And no my crotching punching example above cannot be extended to some paradigm of ... No this is more like a 5th grader punching other 5th graders in the crotch, if that was going to be the response.

[ScimitarXEdge]

yeah Apples and Oranges

Muslims fighting a technologically superior invader in the 80's

Muslims fighting a technologically superior invader in the 2010's

totally distinct....

[Soldat_Amir]

Sorry my friend, you trade the forest for the trees. The immorality of it lies separate from its utility as a tactic. War itself is immoral and the majority of the folks who perish these days are civilians. In the Libyan war for instance, or the Iraq war, the civlian to governmental or Baath Party workers killed ratio is severe. For that matter, you support the Russian reinvasion of Chechnya, yet that resulted in even more civilian casulaties.

You have not sufficiently addressed the issues above in regard to why the tactic is initiated (dramatic assymetry) and what sustains it (NATO presence) as per the data.

Its basically like two guys getting into a fight. The first guy is a big brawny bully in the 9th grade with brass knuckles and the second guy is a wirey 5th grader who just has stamina. The 5th grader and his friends (OBL) were minding their own business in their own countries until the 9th grader with brass knuckles came along and set up shop in one 5th grader's country (OBL) to fight another rival bully (Saddam) and wouldnt leave. Now, the 5th grader (the Taliban or insurgency or whatever) decided he was going to have to rely on crotch punching. The Bully and his supporters cannot just mozy in and say "Oh yeah, and no crotch punch allowed because its a girly move." Thats like telling the 5th grader either A) become the bully's b-itch or B) Accept he is going to be getting beat down a set of brass knuckles and some broken bones.

There is very much a big difference between convential military training, patriotism and learning to fight on a battlefield and being told constantly that if you blow yourself up the Hooris will be watching your arrival through their windows.

I know very well about military order, what we are taught, and how to fight, and in most cases, we are taught to avoid civilian deaths, however, this Suicide bombing does never include this into their training session.

Most of the cases of victims of suicide bombing missions have been civilians.

One question you should ask yourself barakzai, would you send your children to a professional military school or do a downtrodden madrassah in Waziristan where the child's future will be in the boot of a car.

I agree warfare is warfare, but being brainwashed with illogical means is disastrous to society as a whole.

During my visit in 2009,I went to a Rehab clinic in DI Khan for young boys I can recall, the amount of young boys suffering from severe psychosis, addiction to drugs and severe disillusion to reality. Most of the young kids, would say, they can see heaven in front of their eyes, and would walk to this disillusion and would fall risk to being ran over, thats how severely brainwashed they were, by these Talib/Militant Monsters!

Fighting in a War is not something new to the Pashtun people but being told to strap on a explosive vest is something unheard of in Pashtun society, before it was imported to the region by the Taliban/Al Qaida.

Its like saying, its justified to kill civilians with your assault rifle in a war because at the end of the day its a war, but what difference does it make, when Suicide bombers strike schools,police stations and markets? War is War, I agree, but there are rules of conduct, for which the Taliban never follow, they couldnt care less if a civilian is killed.

[Alchemist]

nice job debunking the excuses and scapegoats used to justify suicide bombing tactics in Afghanistan

if the Mujahideen in the 80's could do it without such tactics, so can the so called Insurgents, they only logical reason why they can't or won't is because their goal isn't for the welfare of the people.

Nice Job playing cheerleader....the only thing you are good at.



But do tell us, oh wise and mysterious agnostic luminary....


WHAT IS THE GOAL OF THE SO CALLED INSURGENTS?

[Alchemist]

There is very much a big difference between convential military training, patriotism and learning to fight on a battlefield and being told constantly that if you blow yourself up the Hooris will be watching your arrival through their windows.

I know very well about military order, what we are taught, and how to fight, and in most cases, we are taught to avoid civilian deaths, however, this Suicide bombing does never include this into their training session.

Most of the cases of victims of suicide bombing missions have been civilians.

One question you should ask yourself barakzai, would you send your children to a professional military school or do a downtrodden madrassah in Waziristan where the child's future will be in the boot of a car.

I agree warfare is warfare, but being brainwashed with illogical means is disastrous to society as a whole.

During my visit in 2009,I went to a Rehab clinic in DI Khan for young boys I can recall, the amount of young boys suffering from severe psychosis, addiction to drugs and severe disillusion to reality. Most of the young kids, would say, they can see heaven in front of their eyes, and would walk to this disillusion and would fall risk to being ran over, thats how severely brainwashed they were, by these Talib/Militant Monsters!

Fighting in a War is not something new to the Pashtun people but being told to strap on a explosive vest is something unheard of in Pashtun society, before it was imported to the region by the Taliban/Al Qaida.

Its like saying, its justified to kill civilians with your assault rifle in a war because at the end of the day its a war, but what difference does it make, when Suicide bombers strike schools,police stations and markets? War is War, I agree, but there are rules of conduct, for which the Taliban never follow, they couldnt care less if a civilian is killed.

We've been over this already....

NATO air strikes kills more civilians than Suicide Bombings - Almost three times as much.

Secondly...suicide bombing is an effect of US air strikes - not a cause.


We just have to wait until a drone drops a bomb on your village...then your tune will change very quickly. Heck you might even consider strapping a bomb to your self as well.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Nice Job playing cheerleader....the only thing you are good at.



But do tell us, oh wise and mysterious agnostic luminary....


WHAT IS THE GOAL OF THE SO CALLED INSURGENTS?

escape life under some distorted delusion of martyrdom that they have been brainwashed with?

Why else would they choose suicide bombing, than good old fashioned learning how to use your weapons properly strategies.

[Alchemist]

Ya, the goal of the insurgency is to "escape life".

Good one!



gaga gogo "weapons properly strategies" gogogo ga....Jackass.

[ScimitarXEdge]

hhaha just what I thought, when logic speaks, idiots like Alchemist babble.

[ScimitarXEdge]

We've been over this already....

NATO air strikes kills more civilians than Suicide Bombings - Almost three times as much.

that's impossible since over 70% of civilian deaths are due to insurgent attacks.

you clearly suck **** at arithmetic