Talk:Suicide attack/Archive 3

message: Under the section "Profile of a bomber", this sentence appears: 
A recently published paper by Harvard University Professor of Public Policy Alberto Abadie "cast[s] doubt on the widely held belief that terrorism stems from poverty, finding instead that terrorist violence is related to a nation's level of political freedom."
We should say just what the correlation between political freedom and terrorist violence is (more political freedom == less terrorism, or other way around?), not just that they are related. Donutz 04:45, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Jayjg (talk) 05:08, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Profile of a Bomber;Education

message: (removed from the end of #History): 
:The acquisition of more military firepower would be unlikely to remove the entrenched social power of the fundamentalist Islamists that encourage suicide bombers as martyrs.
Whose prediction is this? Not some editor's, I hope; Wikipedia is not in the business of predicting the future, nor is it an appropriate place for original theses. Attribution to a reliable source is needed. —Charles P. (Mirv) 19:19, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds funny because it's the result of a long compromise on very small aspects of this article. It should probably be removed though, so I don't object.illWill 19:28, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  unsourced prediction 

message: I am not an expert on suicide bombings by any stretch of the imagination, but I do agree with the person who input the profile of the suicide bomber.  I would also like to point out that I feel that suicide bombers are brainwashed.  Military organisations are the best brainwashers in the world because how else can they get men and women to go to foreign countries and fight wars that they really do not believe in if they are not brainwashed.  I was told once that the Islamic extremists tell their suicide bombers will get all of these lovely things when they get to heaven, which is one of the motivations for them going out and killing themselves along with lots of other people.  If suicide bombers get all these great things once they get to heaven then why aren't the leaders of these attacks being suicide bombers so they can get all these great things in heaven?  I would really appreciate it if someone more knowledgable then myself can please put in a link between suicide bombing and brainwashing.--TracyRenee 11:24, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess the problem with that one is that 'brainwashing' is not really a scientific term, as such - there probably exists a wide spectrum of reasons why people may decide to undertake a suicide bombing. Religious 'brainwashing' is certainly one of them, but there isn't a lot of good, citeable material on it - there aren't a tremendous amount of accounts of unsuccessful suicide bombers giving interviews.illWill 16:54, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I think Brainwashing isn't what most people think it is.  In my mind Brainwashing is basically just being taught rationalizations for why your side is always right and the other side is always wrong and evil then being taught that these are intrinsic truths and can't be wrong.  By this definition a lot of people are brainwashed, when these dogmatic beliefs are your only education then it is pretty easy to see how someone becomes suicide bombers, look at the posts under western bias and you'll see what I mean.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg 02:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suicide Bombers and Brainwashing 

message: Ideally it ought to summarize the next five sections in the order that they appear, and should do so in less space. Currently there are seven paragraphs, structured like this:
#Suicide attacks in general.
#Some historical examples from the Crusades to the Viet Minh.
#The Tamil Tigers.
#The Middle East, mainly focusing on Palestinian bombers.
#Islamist encouragement of suicide bombers, again mainly focusing on Palestine.
#Cost-benefit analysis.
#The military historian's perspective: asymetric warfare, etc.
These paragraphs contain information not found in the fuller sections further on in the article, and vice versa. The organization of the section itself is, to put it mildly, substandard. I think it should be structured like this:
#Uses, rationales, tactical and strategic considerations
#History: pre-modern, 20th-century, late 20th-century, and present-day
#Bomber profile
#Opinions
#Terminology
and all the excess or unique information ought to be moved into the sections devoted to the detailed analyses of each point. Are there any comments before I start reworking it? —Charles P. (Mirv) 20:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *I endorse your proposal.  As usual, the article grew without any structure.  --Noitall 23:34, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
All done. Bets on how long it will stay coherent and grammatical are now open. —Charles P. (Mirv) 01:32, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  overview section needs reworking 

message: Should there be a section on Suicide Bombings, or references to said, in Popular Culture.  I was humming that Green Day song, Having a Blast from Dookie, and thought maybe it should be featured in here somewhere. --Irishpunktom\talk 11:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Popular Culture

message: Perhaps there should be a more expanded section on the "first" modern suicide bombings. I've read/heard/watched things about an event that occurred early in the Iran-Iraq War in which a young boy strapped explosives to his body and blew up an Iraqi tank which had been pinning down Iranian troops. It should be easy to gather information on, as he is somewhat of national hero in Iran. I saw a documentary about suicide bombing on the History Channel (could have been the Discovery Channel) where they showed murals of him all over Tehran. They claimed that this was the first 'modern' (that is, after the Islamic Revolution in Iran) suicide bombing. Refugee621 03:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins 

message: This Manga Sewa, whom I'd never heard of till the entry on todays main page, seems to be a suicide bomber, and carries an interesting story.  Should we include? --Irishpunktom\talk 13:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Manga Sewa]]

message: User 213.219.238.10 added the following to the ‘Profile of a bomber’ section:
An analysis of British suicide bombers reveals a profile indicating young men who are torn in a cultural conflict between the desire for Western cultural things and the desire to keep their households, including downtrodden women, as Arab as possible. 
I removed this because the attached article does not say this about the actual bombers. The relevant section of the City Journal article talks about some generalisations about young muslim men rather than specifically profiling British bombers.
It’s a well written article (although probably controversial) and is worth reading, but I think it is too much of an opinion piece to be cited as support for a statement of fact.
--Spondoolicks 10:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't bothered to read the article but note that it's American. I don't know whether the article makes any reference to British Muslims wanting to keep their women as Arab as possible but if it does, or in fact if it makes significant reference to anything Arab this suggests to me whoever authored it knew little about the situation in the UK. The majority of Muslims in the UK are not Arabs, 3 of the 4 suicide bombers for example were Pakistani (one married to an Indian Muslim) and the other one was a Jamaican convert (married to a 'white' convert wife). These people may or may not had a vision for a society they considered more Islamic but I doubt they had gave much thought 'Arabising' their society or their 'downtrodden' women (I suppose this includes the extremely outspoken wife of the Jamaican, the mother-in law and wife involved in charity etc)... Nil Einne 10:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed edit

message: I removed also known as a "homicide bombing" from the lead. Deliberately-loaded terms like "homicide bombing" and "martyrdom operation" (the latter is slightly more popular, if a Googlefight is any indicator) should be discussed neutrally in the section on terminology, not implicitly endorsed by inclusion in the intro. —Charles P. (Mirv) 22:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree Nil Einne 10:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  loaded terms in lead 

message: I have commented out the text in Suicide bombing#Profile of a bomber that reads:
:Japanese kamikaze pilots were sometimes forced to drink poison before their mission so that they would have no second thoughts about surviving.
This comment reads like one of the many myths about the kamikaze. Can anybody provide a citation for this. Gaius Cornelius 17:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Kamikazes and poison

message: I feel the below quote needs rework:
:The radical schools of Islam teach that such a "martyrdom operation" may result in them being rewarded, by Allah, with Paradise (Jannah) and rewards such as 72 houri in the afterlife.[19] [20] That is, they are willing to sacrifice their own life in the hope of becoming a Shaheed, a martyr.
To me, the above suggests the primary goals of these people is to become matyrs and therefore more of a selfish action. While this may be an added bonus, my previous reading suggests this is unlikely to be true, most of them are not primarily doing it for themselves or for what it may bring to them (as matyrs) but have more 'noble' aims even if seriously misguided actions Nil Einne 10:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Matrys 

message: Some, if not all news outlets, are calling suicide bombers homicide bombers. Martial Law 23:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Few do. Actually, it's just one: Fair and balanced FOX News. You got any cites for "most, if not all"? Ewlyahoocom 01:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FOX News, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, this goes on and on, especially if  a "car bomb", etc. went off. I have met a war vet who had taken a hit from a IED, i.e. a homemade bomb. Martial Law 05:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: What these people ( The "homicide bombers") do, is make up a coat or belt with dynamite attached to it, a means of detonating this, some nails, metallic junk, anything to create shrapnel, then they go to a public area, like a hotel or resteraunt, then "act" normally until a crowd assembles, then set this thing off, not only killing himself/herself, they kill at least 10 or 20 other people, injure 40 or 50 other people. This is public knowledge. Martial Law 05:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, so let me see if I understand this: a homicide bomber, unlike a regular bomber, wants to kill people; a suicide bomber wants to kill themselves, but is OK if other people also die. So a plain old bomber just likes to blow shit up, whether or not people die? Also, I don't know if the 4 sources you've listed above count as "if not all". Have you considered changing the channel once in a while? Or maybe even reading a newspaper? Ewlyahoocom 05:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A plain old bomber just lays the device and gets out before it goes off, a suicide bomber, now known as a homicide bomber will make up a suit that is stated above, await people to show up, then when there is "enough" people, he/she then detonates the shrapnel filled device, killing him/her , those nearby, injuring others. Some people have suggested that the annual New Years celebrations held in New York City would make a good target for 20 homicide bombers. That could kill nearly 500 people, injure 1,000, some serverely, spread fear and chaos. Another possible target of this sort is the annual Mardi-Gras celebrations in New Orleans. This is public knowledge. Martial Law 04:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But since a plain old bomber wants to kill people, shouldn't you refer to him as a homicide bomber, too? Your New Year's plan is truly ingenious, I doubt that anyone will anticipate it. Ewlyahoocom 05:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats no plan. Suggestions like that one has been featured on the news outlets. Martial Law 07:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: News

message: I am a wiki user reading all of the discussions here on this topic and I am disgusted in the way this topic has been turned into a Muslims VS Jews and Jews VS Muslims topic. If you are muslim OF COURSE you are going to have a slant towards the "Islamist" view. Similarly If you are Jewish you are going to have a "Zionist" slant. Please leave the propaganda, dogma, slants, biases, racism, prejudices and causes at home. Make your own free online dictionary if you like. Zoinists, Islamists, we know you hate one another but don't subject the rest of the world to your causes and beliefs. As a matter of fact Everyone -SAVE ALL YOUR IZM's AND BIASES FOR YOUR PERSONAL BLOGS! 
     -Human
:well said. Arniep 19:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "A Bipartisan Issue" 

message: Almost the whole tactics section is unverified and seems like editor's opinions on the tactics and effects of suicide bombing. While most of it is fairly reasonable, almost none of it is verified. 
Statements in the section need to be sourced or chopped out. Ashmoo 03:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tactics Section (WP:CITE)

message: Should have been done long ago. Female suicide bomber does not cover anything that cannot be reasonably covered under this article. Will go ahead and merge if there are no objections. Chancemill 11:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do so. Cheers, TewfikTalk 17:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, Female suicide bomber should be a section, not an article. Doremítzwr 13:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I think... at least for now... because, there is nothign significant about them being female that makes it separately notable.  Maybe someday if there are actually articles about the specific influence of female suicide bombers then it can be split... just like we have "women in religion" articles... gren グレン 20:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should be merged, but the "weasel words" issue needs addressing first. Mtpt 14:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge, as above. -b 13:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.' completely Opposed. The Female Suicide bombers is a differnet article which stands by itself and has great encyclopedic value. Amoruso 13:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's important also for different reasons than profiling. The major importance is that women are regarded as worse victims in almost all cultures, which is why people often use the claim of the killing of "women and children" as a sign for a worse atrocity. When one side who claims that the killing of women is more atrocious, and yet uses women as suicide bombers, it's a very important occurance to talk about in depth. Amoruso 20:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal to merge content from Female suicide bomber

message: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3269316,00.html Can someone incorporate this information? 72.83.84.202 01:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New proclamation by Islamic leaders 

message: ... the business about strapping handicapped people into suicide planes. If it doesn't have a source, though, does it really belong in the article? Or are we just repeating gossip because it's interesting? There are lots of things that have "been observed" by unnamed parties that don't belong in an encyclopedia.
Same deal with the "maybe they didn't realize it was a suicide attack" thing re: the 9/11 bombers -- hotly debated by whom? And exactly how credible were the participants in these debates? BYT 12:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yes, all very appalling 

message: I've added a brief discussion and some citations for the recently deleted term "Islamikaze."  Per a discussion with the deleting admin, I've brought the term over here for your discussion.  I added the text and citations so that the editors here can get a sense of the term's usage -- it's rare, but a google scholar search will turn up about 40 scholarly papers, mostly either written by Israeli or discussing his work.  The term also pops up on the net, and Bat Ye'or uses it frequently in her book Eurabia.
IMHO, it's significantly more notable than "genocide bomber," and is worth noting alongside genocide bomber and homicide bomber as part of the general trend of wrestling with what to call military-oriented suicide bombers.  Does anyone object to including the text here and a redirect from Islamikaze?  Thanks, TheronJ 15:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islamikaze 

message: In the case of the September 11 attacks, the long-term effects remain to be seen, but in the short-to-medium term, the results were profoundly negative for Al-Qaeda as well as for the Taliban Movement.
I am going to edit out 'profoundly'.  The reprisal to Sept. 11 could not have been solely because it was a suicide bombing, but rather because it was a general tragic loss of life.  Since this section is on opinions regarding the actual effectiveness of suicide bombings, we should be careful not to confuse the politics before and after the action with the action itself.  There could be no general statement saying whether or not they are effective since it is so wrapped up in the political climate of the time.
--Alex Kozak 10:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Range of opinions section not factual?