Just to add one more comment:

The only reason I do not think that every Muslim is a terrorist is because of the language barrier.

The Qur’an is supposed to remain in Arabic. There are 1.2-1.5 billion Muslims on this planet, and there are only 250 Million Arabic speakers.

What I am suggesting is that many Muslims gain a very superficial knowledge of the Qur’an through their Imam, who teaches them the basic daily prayers, etc etc. Notice how the “radical” Muslims are the ones who know everything about Islam. Not that there aren’t any exceptions. I label them apologists.

If all Muslims spoke Arabic fluently, and were able to grasp a better understanding of Islamic teachings and doctrine, I think we’d see a shitload more of our current problem.

blatantblue on March 4, 2008 at 5:03 PM

Its not a matter of which is the superior culture, religion, or strategy, its a question of whether a civilization dedicated to peaceful existence, the sanctity of life and freedom is ready to abandon its values in order to survive.

Geministorm on March 4, 2008 at 1:53 PM

Great post Gemini and I completely agree. Many have forgotten what they learned in school about Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, survival needs always come first for a obvious reasons, without survival other things like peaceful coexistence, habeas corpus, or being “civilized” won’t matter one bit as we’ll all be dead.

The liberal left for whatever reason will not face this reality but we on the right understand what we are facing and how critical it is to do something about (sooner rather than later) before the monster (fascist Islam) grows stronger and it requires more death and destruction to finally kill it, yet we are constantly being hampered in doing what needs to be done at every turn by the “give appeasement a chance” liberals.

It’s frustrating and frightening to say the least, but what’s really ironic about this situation is the fact the longer we (the US and its allies) wait the more difficult the road ahead will be and the more people that will suffer and die because of it.

So essentially the left’s unwillingness to support this war fully will actually cause more death, destruction, and suffering and for this reason history will not be kind to the liberal left and we conservatives must ensure we never let them (the left) and the world forget it so if sometime in the future we face a similar situation (I hope not) those on the left will not forget this lesson.

Liberty or Death on March 4, 2008 at 6:13 PM

(continued…)
Pape’s study found no correlation between Islam and suicide bombing. He did, however, find a very good correlation (p less than 0.001) between suicide bombing and occupation. (When the Pentagon saw these results, they stopped their funding of the study). What one researcher after another finds when analyzing the data (if it is comprehensive) is that suicide terrorism is a result of occupation, not Islam.

dave742 on March 4, 2008 at 7:08 PM

I have some problems with Pape, as he also claims that air power alone isn’t enough to win wars

I am not sure how that relates to his study on suicide bombing. But in response to this off topic remark, I think Iraq and Afghanistan back up his air power stance quite well.

It’s interesting that you quote Diego Gambetta without citing HIS criticisms of Pape’s study…(citing quote about rationality)

Gambetta feels that suicide bombers have achieved less results than Pape does. That’s fine, but it has nothing to do with the fact that most suicide bombers are secular, which Gambetta does agree with. As for this off topic statement, I disagree with Gambetta, because suicide bombing was an important contributing factor to the fact that Hezbollah was able to drive Israel out of Lebanon, which is quite impressive.

we do not have even a single case of a non-Islamic faith justifying “suicide missions”

Again, this says nothing about the fact that most suicide bombers are secular. As I said, Gambetta agrees with Pape about that. It is hard for a serious person not to, because it is a empirical fact. As for Gambetta’s statement that you quoted, Islam does not justify suicide missions, and most Muslims agree. A “reinterpretation” of Islam was needed to justify it. Also, how many other religious groups in the world today are living under occupation? The majority are Muslim.
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 time doesn’t change very much.

the sample size he uses is way too small

This is ridiculous. He included every suicide bombing during the time period. The sample cannot be any larger. Who made this critique? It must be someone who knows nothing about statistics. To compare a public opinion poll to a study such as Pape’s is idiotic. My wife is a Social Psychologist, and the pilot study of her current study had 8 people in it, and it showed significant results. The complete study will be of 40 people. Sample size is reflected in the alpha value, which in Pape’s study in less than 0.001. Significance in the Social Science is usually claimed at the 0.05 level. Pape’s study is much more significant than that, and is at the same level used in medical studies where accuracy is critical. This level of accuracy could have only been achieved by chance in less than one in 1000 times. To brush this off shows ignorance.

But one study doesn’t make it established fact.

I gave three references that all pointed to the same fact. Can you show me one that says anything different? But you don’t need studies for your worldview, just xenophobia.

dave742 on March 4, 2008 at 8:21 PM

Venividivici:
Let’s first look at the sentence in the article you link to that most relates to the subject at hand:

the fact remains that most suicide bombings since 1980 in the world in general and in the Middle East in particular are sponsored by Islamist and not secular terrorist groups

Wow! This conclusion is the exact opposite of that reached by Pape, Gambetta, et al, and Merari! This is very interesting. Pape spent years with a team of researchers gathering information from every suicide bombing over a 23 year period, used sound research methods and came up with very statistically significant results. So where did he go wrong? What was the miscalculation that Fine was able to unearth that invalidates years worth of work? It will be interesting to read the critique. And we find it in the next sentence: he “gerrymandered his data”!
Oh! Now I get it!
This is pathetic. You can only get away with this in a BS journal like Middle East Quarterly. (Is it even a journal? Do they even put out a hard copy? Or is it one of those prestigious online-only journals?) Pape’s study was so impressive that the preliminary results were published in American Political Science Review, the top Political Science Journal (according to Journal of Citation Reports) in the nation. And you give me some polemic from a journal founded by Pipes and Rubin, from a journal that does not appear in JCR because it is a joke. Nice try.
But I guess I should go further. Fine does say something specific. He says that Pape gerrymandered his data so that he “does not need to include the significant numbers of suicide bombings conducted by Sunnis against Shi‘a in Iraq.” Guess what. There might be another explanation. The data in Pape’s study goes up until 2003, which is when the article in APSR was published. Pape did not use data from Iraq because he could not see into the future. What suicide bombing that had occurred there before the study came out was also difficult to analyze, because the identity of most suicide bombers in Iraq is nearly impossible to obtain. The experience in Iraq invalidates nothing, but only strengthens his thesis. Suicide bombing was unknown in Iraq before the US invasion. Then the US invades and occupies Iraq, and suicide bombing begins. Hmmmm. It must be their religion! It can’t possibly be the occupation!
Let’s look at Lebanon. No suicide bombing from Lebanon before the 1982 Israel invasion. Israel occupies Lebanon – suicide bombing starts (mostly from Marxist groups). Once the occupation ends, suicide bombing ends. Hmmmmmm.
This is not hard to understand.
But Fine gives a reference after his gerrymandering statement, and points to a Martin Kramer article. Fine, let’s look at that.
Kramer begins his speech by giving his audience (this was from a debate) three reasons why they will “want to believe” Professor Pape’s theory. Kramer realizes that any logical, objective, and open-minded person will find Pape’s fact-based theory completely logical, coherent, and compelling, so he tries to counter this by giving reasons why one should ignore these judgments. Kramer claims that there are actually deeper, hidden reasons that the audience will make these conclusions, and the audience is not self-aware enough to see this. To help them, Kramer lists the mistakes that the audience is liable to make. How nice of him. Kramer’s reasons that people “want to believe” Pape’s theory are:
1. Because the theory is reassuring.
Kramer tells his audience that they are afraid to face the fact that suicide bombers are merely crazy Muslims that are out to get them. The audience wants to avoid this fear by adopting Pape’s theory that suicide bombing is related to occupation, because occupation as a cause is much easier to remedy than dealing with crazy Muslims. He even gives a Wizard of Oz analogy to try to shame the audience for not facing reality. He begins by insulting his audience, which is a strange debating tactic. But it gets worse.
2. Because the theory is empirical.
Kramer claims that fact-based research can’t be trusted for three reasons. First, because databases can be flawed. His speech, however, makes no accusations of flawed data in relation to Pape’s work, so this does not apply to his critique. Second, samples can be too small. This is ridiculous for Kramer to bring up in relation to Pape’s study, because Pape studies the universe of suicide bombings: every single event from 1980 through 2003. As I said above, the sample size cannot be any larger! Third, statistics can be misleading. This can certainly be true, but this usually happens when a biased individual wants to use statistics to support his point of view, and he therefore cherry-picks the ones that do support it, and ignores the ones that don’t. This is impossible to do in a properly run study. For example, Pape studies the universe of suicide bombings, and all the cases are treated equally. It is people like Kramer, however, that use misleading statistics and facts. For example, Kramer can advance the thesis that Islam is responsible for suicide bombings, and then simply ignore all cases where this is clearly false. In addition, studies like Pape’s are published in peer-reviewed journals, where the reviewers will address any evidence of bias. Misleading, cherry-picked statistics are generally found in the media, books, speeches, the internet, etc, and not in comprehensive studies published in peer-reviewed journals.
Kramer in general doesn’t like empirical, fact-based research because this approach will always lead to conclusions that conflict with his analysis. (Kramer’s distrust of fact-based research also explains his involvement with Campus Watch). Kramer is much more comfortable with the approach of presenting an emotional appeal to people’s biases and prejudices, without the presentation of any facts. He tells the audience that his approach may “confuse” the audience, but in the end, it is more trustworthy than those misleading facts. So he tells the audience that if the facts seem very clear to them, it is because the truth may simply be too “[confusing]” for them to understand. He tells the audience they are not smart enough to see his “truth”. More insults for the audience.
3. Because the theory is secular.
Here Kramer comes back to the idea that his audience is afraid to confront the idea of Islam being the cause of suicide terrorism, so they prefer Pape’s theory of nationalism as a cause. Again, Kramer tells his audience that they are too scared to face the facts. The problem with this is Pape’s theory is not secular. One of Pape’s tenants is that there must be a religious difference between the occupied nation and the occupying nation for suicide bombings to occur. Islam in particular is not a cause of suicide bombing, but a religious difference is a key factor. Kramer says “the idea of religion as an independent variable is foreign to our mode of thought”. Pape’s book, however, expressly defines religion as an independent variable: “The two independent variables in the study are the existence of a religious difference and the existence of rebellion…”. Kramer should have read the book before making this statement.
Kramer concludes this journey through the psyche of the audience by saying, “So the popularity of Professor Pape’s thesis tells us interesting things about ourselves.” He is saying Pape’s thesis is popular not because it is a thorough, well-researched, and well-reasoned study, but because people, including his audience, are too stupid and too scared to realize what the real reason for suicide terrorism is. Starting a speech by telling the audience that they are stupid and scared is not the best way to win an argument in a debate. The interesting thing we learn here is not what the popularity of Pape’s theory tells us about ourselves, but what Kramer’s introduction tells us about him. We know now that Kramer does not think he can deal with Pape’s theory on an intellectual level, so instead he begins by trying to shame the audience into believing that Pape’s theory may not be correct.

After he’s done insulting the audience, Kramer begins with his actual critique. First, Kramer says he does not have a competing theory that can address all cases. Instead, Kramer thinks that suicide terrorism has “…different origins and [achieves] different purposes in different contexts”. This may be so. People can have different reasons for carrying out the same act. But as most scientists will tell you, the simplest theory that fits the facts is usually the right one. So let’s see whose explanations fit the facts better; Pape’s simple, all encompassing theory, or Kramer’s individual explanations for each case. Kramer also explains that he will only be addressing suicide bombings from three different groups: Hizbullah, Hamas, and al-Qaeda. (This is not a surprise. It’s hard to address suicide bombings by the LTTE and blame it on Islam, so Kramer ignores cases like these. It’s what Kramer likes to call using “too small” of a sample. Kramer cherry picks his cases, but brings up the technique in relation to Pape, who addresses all cases. Funny/) Therefore, we will only be able to compare theories for these three cases.

At this point, Kramer again brings up how Pape only reluctantly introduces the idea of religion into his theory. Kramer says that “…Pape lets religion into his formula through the back door…” and that he “…clearly casts religious difference as a subordinate factor…” Once again, this is ridiculous. Pape’s model has two independent variables, and a religious difference between the occupier and the occupied is one of the two. Religious difference is not a “subordinate factor”, but is one of two independent factors in Pape’s study! In addition, Pape talks about the importance of religious difference throughout his book. Again, the factor in Pape’s analysis is a religious difference and not Islam specifically, and this is what Kramer has a problem with. Kramer thinks that Islam is the critical factor, and not a religious difference in general, and he says that Pape shows “…the usual academic reticence about fingering Muslims or Islamists”. Kramer is saying that Pape is as afraid as the audience is about not facing the fact that Islam is the real problem. However, maybe it is not fear that causes Pape to bring up religious differences instead of Islam. Maybe it is the facts that cause him to make this distinction. Religious difference explains why the LTTE uses suicide bombing against Sri Lanka, when they are a secular/Hindu group. How can Kramer blame this on Islam? He can’t, so he ignores it. The lack of religious difference explains why the LTTE discontinued their use of suicide bombing when India occupied their land, even though India’s occupation was even more oppressive than Sri Lanka’s. Kramer cannot explain this, so he ignores it. Kramer also cannot explain why over half of suicide bombers are secular. This does not fit his theory of blaming Islam, so he ignores the fact. And if the Muslims are simply attacking the West because they are unbelievers, I would expect all Muslims worldwide to be attacking all Western countries pretty much randomly. Why is it that only occupied Muslims are attacking only the nations that occupy them? Even though the US supplies Israel with all the weapons, bulldozers, helicopters, and political support that they possibly can, still the Palestinians only attack Israel. Why don’t Palestinians attack the US as well? Pape would say it’s because Israel in the country that is occupying Palestine, and not the US. Kramer ignores this. Why does Al-Qaeda concentrate its attacks against the US? Why don’t they attack Israel as well? Pape explains this by pointing out that it is the US that is occupying the Arabian peninsula, and not Israel. (Al-Qaeda has also targeted countries allied with the US in the occupation of Iraq, but the reasons are the same). Kramer ignores this. Pape’s theory explains all of the facts. The motive behind Kramer’s theory is to demonize Islam, and he conveniently ignores all facts that do not fit his view.

The first case that Kramer addresses is that of Hizbullah in Lebanon. Kramer admits that Islamists did not commit all of the suicide bombings that occurred in Lebanon in the 1980’s, and that their “secular competitors” also committed attacks. Kramer, however, does not state how many of the attacks were committed by each group. I showed above that it was the vast majority that was committed by secular groups.
Kramer’s task, then, is to find a way to blame suicide bombing in Lebanon on Islam, even in the face of this data that clearly shows Islam is not a key factor. So how does he do it? He says that even though Islam was “not present in all suicide bombings” (an interesting way of putting it when, in fact, Islam was “not present” in 73% of the suicide bombings), it “had to be there at the creation”. Kramer’s way of blaming Islam is to claim that it doesn’t matter how many attacks were actually carried out by secular groups or individuals, but what counts is who carried out the first attacks. This is the “he started it” defense that you normally hear on the playground in the third grade. It is quite hilarious that a supposed “expert” would try to make this argument. The idea that the religious affiliation of the first suicide bomber is to take the blame for all subsequent suicide bombings is completely insane on a number of levels. Kramer justifies this stance by saying that it is unlikely that secular groups could have come up with the idea of suicide bombing on their own. Only fundamentalist Muslims and their distorted morality are capable of originating this idea. But even if we adopt Kramer’s insane logic, is it true that Hezbollah invented suicide bombing?
First of all, even within the Israel-Palestine conflict, the suicide attacks by Hezbollah in 1982 were not the first. Several occurred in the 1970’s, and all of those were committed by secular organizations (See Ricolfi, Luca “Palestinians, 1981-2003” in “Making Sense of Suicide Missions”, Diego Gambetta, editor, 2005, page 81). For example, on 12 April 1974 three members of the Palestinian Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command attacked a settlement in Kiryat Shmona. When Israeli soldiers stormed the building they were in, the three blew themselves up (See “Arab Guerillas Raid Israel Apartment House, Shoot 34 – 18 Die Before Three Attackers Blow Selves Up”, Los Angeles Times, 11 April 1974, page 2. Also “2 Arab Terrorists Massacre 18 in Raid on Israel Border Town”, Los Angeles Times, Harry Trimborn, 12 April 1974, Page A1. And “Arab Guerillas Kill 18 in Israeli Town, Then Die in Blast at Apartment House”, New York Times, 12 April 1974, page 65). Ahmed Jibril, the founder of the PFLP-GC, said at the time, “I’m persuaded that other organizations can only imitate us and follow this difficult and painful path.” (See “Arab Terrorist’s Goal-Crush Israel”, Los Angeles Times, Jocelyn Saab, 12 March 1975, page B6).If we are to follow Kramer’s third grade logic and blame whoever started suicide bombings, then in reality it is secular groups that should really get the blame. Islamic groups were only able to “imitate [the PFLP-GC] and follow [the] difficult and painful path [of suicide bombing]”.
It is possible to follow the history of suicide bombing (or suicide attacks) much farther back than this, however. Vietnamese soldiers used the technique against the US in Vietnam (For example, see “Suicide Attack Described”. New York Times, 26 February 1969, page 7 and “Reds in Suicide Attack on US Infantry Camp”, Chicago Tribune, 19 April 1969, page S8). At this point maybe Kramer wants to blame Communists for all suicide attacks, since “they started it”. But suicide attacks go back even further, as I stated above. The first known suicide attack was from the Zealots two thousand years ago. If we use Kramer’s “they started it” logic, that means we can blame suicide attacks on the Jews!
Look, I’m getting tired. Sorry this got so long, but if you are unable to mount you’re own critique instead of posting links, it would be much easier. Maybe you should actually read Pape’s book! (Sorry, I don’t know what I was saying). Are you able to find any serious critiques?

Kramer recommends the book “In the Path of Hizbullah” (see geocities.com/martinkramerorg/Sacrifice.htm). Here’s a couple quotes from that book:

Ayatollah Khamanai:
“Hizbullah is the front line of the Islamic world in its fight with the Zionist enemy. The liberation of occupied Palestine is the prime goal for the jihad against the Zionist entity.

Nasrallah reply:
“As you are wali amr al-Muslimin (guardian of the Muslims), the resistance will continue its path of jihad until the liberation of all occupied land.” p. 146

Occupation!

Kramer also recommends Saad-Ghorayeb. Here’s some quotes from that book:
“Occupation of one’s land by Israel or any other foreign power emerges as a principal determinant of oppression and, like all oppressed people, those whose land is occupied will be afforded Hizbu’llah’s ‘automatic’ support.” P.21 (quoting Fnaysh)
“It is the right and duty of all people [whose land is occupied] to resist occupation.” Nasrullah p.126
“Hezbollah does not pursue martyrdom as an end in itself, but as a means of achieving victory.” Nasrullah p.133
“the [military] operations are only linked to the issue of occupation.” Nasrullah p.109

dave742 on March 4, 2008 at 11:28 PM

followup to dave947:

As I said above..

“I respectfully questioned your cite of one college professor’s study and book, and then noted that the statistical sample was way too small to draw a reliable conclusion from, and you replied that because two other college professors agreed with it that it was therefore true.

Then you insulted me to boot. By doing so you admit you had just lost the debate.”

Now, here is an excerpt of what you said minutes earlier…

“Starting a speech by telling the audience that they are stupid and scared is not the best way to win an argument in a debate.”

Go ask Alice….

Del Dolemonte on March 5, 2008 at 12:12 AM

The reason this will never end is because there is no proper way to “modernize” or “moderate” Islam.

there is a way, the same way religious extremism ‘fades’ in any society: prosperity. (how many radical American muslims do you know other than Ghadan (sp?))
The pre-Crusades/Ghengis Khan Middle East was far more moderate than Europe. Far more. It is no coincidence that they were also wealthier and more culturally advanced than Europe as well.

Back to the post: For some reason reading the quotes from the radicals I keep hearing the phrase ‘careful what you wish for’ in my head.

MannyT-vA on March 5, 2008 at 6:57 AM

venividivici:
Nobody has every made a critique of Pape’s methods other than to say his sample size is too small, which only makes sense to someone who knows nothing about statistics. The strong relationship to occupation has never been addressed by Fine or anyone else. This relationship that nobody has disputed can only happen by chance in less tha 1 in 1,000 times. You say that Fine’s blathering about Islam has conveinced you that this is indeed what happened. Pape’s findings are just one big coincidence.
Right

dave742 on March 5, 2008 at 10:12 AM

When talking about secular terrorism, Fine spends 10 paragraphs talking about secular terrorism prior to 1980, which is before the time period Pape studied. Finally, in the last two paragraphs he reaches the time period where Pape counted 218 secular attacks. First he mentions the secular attacks in Lebanon, but does not say a word about them, because there is no way he can while avoiding the issue of occupation. Then he mentions 168 suicide attacks by the LTE, but says nothing about the motivations there either. Then he brings up the PKK, who he says carried out 15 attacks. For those, he says this about motivation:

Too little is known about the motivation of the attackers, here. Some may have been terminally ill or promised significant financial reward to support their families; others may have believed they could escape alive

He gives a reference that says nothing specific about any of this. It is hard to believe that the primary motive for suicide for any sane person would be a terminal illness or a reward (when terminally ill people commit suicide, they do not take out others with them). This leaves occupation. As for those who believed they could escape alive, this is possible, but only one example is given in the Pipes reference, and that has absolutely no specifics. So Fine calls into question the motivation of 15 attacks out of the 218 total secular attacks, and gives a vague reference for a total of one. At best he has not addressed the motive of even 1% of the secular attackers.
Awesome paper.

dave742 on March 5, 2008 at 2:07 PM