h a l f b a k e r y
Why not imagine it in a way that works?
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
or get an account
Most suicide bombers probably do it not for the cause, but because they either don't have much to lose, or, by becoming recognized martyrs, they can set up their destitute families.
While this is better than having no suicide bombs whatsoever, and the media lacks the critical skills to point the class
bias out, it is painfully obvious that they would not be doing it if they were well to do.
If the wealthy terrorists (should there be any) step up the the suicide bombing plate, we will have a different ballgame.
Imagine if Bill Gates blew himself up in the capital and left a manifesto up on Microsoft.com. Would there be any doubt as to what he was trying to say?
MIT study on Suicide Bomber's motivations
Apparently, a wealthy suicide bomber has failed to materialize. [fishboner, Aug 14 2011]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
||Hmm, evidence? Not saying you have none
but i'm interested in knowing if it exists.
||The reason i say this is that it seems to me that
there would be a correlation between wealth and
the kind of opinion which leads to suicide
bombing, because the idea that suicide bombing
achieves the political aim for which it's ostensibly
pursued is not obvious, and because it's not
obvious it would seem to me that it's evidence of
extensive thought and strategising in a manner
which is out of touch with the way people who
have not pursued education extensively perceive
reality. Since education correlates with an
increased income, it would seem that wealthy
people are more likely to kill themselves with this
||Having said that, i'm sure there are many people
whose lower state of ignorance or frustration at
their poverty leads them to pursue such forms of
expression or renders them vulnerable to being
convinced that this would be a good thing to do.
||There clearly have been wealthy individuals involved
in organisations widely regarded as terrorist, one
example being Osama bin Laden. Patty Hearst also
comes pretty close.
||The MIT study as well as others strongly suggest that there
is no consistent unifying demographic in the backgrounds
of known terrorist individuals, other than the fact that
most willing perpetrators of suicide bombings (as
distinguished from other forms of terrorist attacks such as
hostage-taking, shooting sprees, remote bombings, etc.)
do not come from poverty.
||//do not come from poverty// Disturbing. That
suggests that the best defense is keeping everyone
else poor. Or that efforts to raise living standards in
poor countries are a security threat to the wealthier
||Please note that that particular statistic only applies to
willing suicide bombers. If we use that as our basis for
strategy, keeping people poor wouldn't stop shootings,
conventional bombings, hijacking, hostage bombings,
chemical or biological attacks, or any of the other nasty
things these idiots come up with.
||Although I have to admit, I sometimes find their lack of
creativity surprising. I guess I just have that kind of mind.
||// wouldn't stop ... hijacking //
||It would if they're too poor to buy an airline ticket.
||// I sometimes find their lack of creativity surprising //
||Surprising, but reassuring, because it makes them somewhat easier to counter; let's hope that they continue to climb up out of the trenches when the whistle blows, and walk slowly and steadily towards the enemy machine guns.
||Most terrorist/insurgency movements (that aren't backed by a government with a competent military) display a gratifying lack of competence.
||It is useful to contrast the performance of the Maquis* and the Yugoslav Partisans during WWII, who caused the Axis powers a substantial amount of embuggerance, with the woeful performance of many subsequent "terrorist" organizations, who have - relatively speaking - had relatively minimal impact (compared to more than doubling the time it took to move an armored division from Southern to Northern france), and have achieved little or nothing of their stated aims.
||*Despite being french, the Maquis achieved this because they were supplied, trained and organized by the British.
The french could never have managed it on their own.
||"Whether one lands in a social group with jihadi tendencies may be random.
But the prerequisite for this path is perceived injustice."
||I'm just saying, if I can think of really much nastier shit
that they could pull, why can't one of them think of it? I'm
certainly very glad that they don't, but it seems unlikely
that anyone resourceful enough to put together one of the
really high-profile ones (9/11, Madrid, London, for recent
examples) should be at least half as deviantly creative as I