Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

The Suicide Bomber.

Page: 1(2)

sdv (non-human)

18:58 / 26.07.05

skolld

Whilst the kind of statement you make/quote has been made continusly since the 7th of July - it is not terribly convincing. We have to ignore the platitudes of the faithful and look at the social and historical events that are carried out in the name of the religion.

From the legitimation of killing a writer because he insulted key religious figures (fortunately nobody carried out the act), to islamic militants killing people on trains.

For what it's worth I think the islamists are decadent reactionary figures - who want us all to live in the 14th C.

s

19:08 / 26.07.05

For what it's worth I think the islamists are decadent reactionary figures - who want us all to live in the 14th C.

who are the islamists?
are they all the ones who want us to live in the C14th?
are there no islamists who dont?

Tryphena Absent

19:27 / 26.07.05

These include women, children, monks and hermits, the aged, blind and insane

Well that condemns Islam in precisely the same way that it would condemn Christianity for me, that being the acceptance that the groups above are necessarily non-combatants.

Toksik, try putting the word "islamist" into google. That ought to clear a few things up for you and save us some time.

Tryphena Absent

21:23 / 26.07.05

are there no islamists who dont?

As for this question, it's a difficult one to answer. Islamist is a word that points towards religious extremism and it does tend to roll back progress, for instance most Islamists would never protest against the inequality demanded by dress code as is laid out by Sharia although under Ayatollah Khomeini's governance of Iran a group of Islamist women did state that both men and women should dress modestly and avoid seduction, and thus the dress code should address both genders and not just women (Hashemi 1982; Talaghani, Tabatabai et al 1982).

I'm not sure that religious extremists generally want to drag us back to the 14th century but they do generally seem to want to roll us back to the 1950's, regardless of the religion that they hold dear. Likewise I don't know if these people are decadent but as a female in London in the 21st century my perspective suggests that all Islamists are reactionary because I believe that anyone who suggests that all people within a certain ethnicity/nation/religion avoid seduction is reactionary.

sdv (non-human)

06:46 / 27.07.05

I used "14th C " deliberately because the islamists, much like some fundamentalist christians incidentally, want to take us all back to a society in which social, personal and political decisions were essentially guided by ideologies founded on religion. The 14th C was the last moment when this was clearly the case here (western europe that is...)

We currently live in a society which since the 17th revolution in thought - scientific and industrial revolution if you like, has forced most western religions into becoming more 'moderate' and accepting of difference. The irrationalities and reactionary nature of religious ideologies have been gradually suppressed by the dominance of secular thought and existence.

All islamists want to exist within this strange position of wanting to live in the 14th C...

best

s

sdv (non-human)

09:04 / 27.07.05

I realize that my use of the word 'decadent' is slightly contentious - but I use it because I think it accurately describes the desire to both dominate and at the same time be subservient in a particularly nasty and pre-modern way. Decadence in it's modern usage implies that those who are decadent are also degenerate. And what is more degenerate than oppressing people because of faith in a religious ideology ?

The islamist struggle is not one aimed at liberating people, It is not intending to liberate people from colonial, racial and sexual oppression. Rather it wants to take whole populations back into a more oppressive and terrible existance.

Which is why I think the 1950s reference is not extreme enough for it does not accurately describe how terrible everyday life would be if the Islamists won - which of course they cannot. As a side note during the 1950s the people of Algeria fought an anti-colonial war against the French colonialists, which was violent brutal and nasty - and yet without doubt because of the justice of the struggle we would have supported them.

Both moderate islamic spokesperople and Islamists make the fraudulent claim that there is a unified and worldwide 'islamic community' - this is a deeply reactionary notion and pretty obviously incorrect. It is even more appalling in it's way than the modern nation-state (those endless claims that to be British/American etc gives you 'value') but at least within the nation-state a universal franchise, difference and critique is possible...

later i guess...

s

14:18 / 27.07.05

Whilst the kind of statement you make/quote has been made continusly since the 7th of July - it is not terribly convincing. We have to ignore the platitudes of the faithful and look at the social and historical events that are carried out in the name of the religion.

I think people have been using this 'quote' since the first Palastinian suicide bomber showed up, but i can't see how that would devalue it. If anything it reaffirms the claim that most people practicing Islam don't think of them as Martyrs.
I think if you are going to use the term 'martyr' in your argument then it is only fitting to use it in context, otherwise any conlusions you make will be next to useless.

Crimes carried out 'in the name of religion' most often have very little to do with religion. Religion has usually been used to control large populations of people by the political forces at work in a culture. Nationalism works the same way, but these are only symptoms of the problem. the issue as i see it, is the ruling parties and how they manipulate these ideologies to execise power.
I feel that to attack religion as the problem with suicide bombers is misleading. It's like trying to cure the syptoms of a disease and not the disease itself.

15:17 / 27.07.05

Yeah, I think "islamist" is an unfortunate term because it really describes a social/political ideology rather than a religious one. It simply has the name of a religion within its name, and adapts religious concepts to worldly ends.

I'm a little worried that the discussion here is veering off into religion & terrorism as opposed to suicide bombing in specific... the thread on that is over here. Obviously, the two topics have a bit of overlap, though.

Carry on.

-------------

Here's a thought that just struck me out of left field. (Tortured metaphor, sorry.)

Bombs originally had a religious resonance, in a way. Historically, I mean -- some of the first bombs were referred to as infernal machines, a name that goes back to the time of Napoleon or earlier, but was also a fixture of some of the earliest coverage of terrorist attacks in the 20th century.

Infernal, you know. Deals with the Devil.

I'm not sure if that can be tied into the kind of ideas surrounding the suicide bomber as martyr or not.

sdv (non-human)

16:04 / 27.07.05

skoold/Grant

Interesting in that you (S) are implying that ideologies are not to blame for the acts carried out in their name. I suspect you are only making this point because the ideology is religious in inspiration rather than merely anti-colonial or political... Whereas I would say that what is specific about these suicide bombers/terrorists is precisely their reactionary religious intentions. Arguably you could say they are merely the programmed human missiles of those with the intentions but that is a terrible proposition.

Acts of suicide bombing carried out by terrorists are justifed in the name of a religious ideology should be understood in terms of the ideology and not simply as a reflection of the causal material circumstances. (In the last instance )... So I think Grant that your moderation suggestion is inappropriate - how to discuss 'suicide bombers' outside of the justifying context ???

steve

02:56 / 29.07.05

Well, I made the suggestion because suicide bombing isn't exclusive to Islamists. As pointed out in that religion thread, the most active suicide bombers today are actually the Tamil Tigers, who are generally Hindu, but not engaged in a religious war per se -- they're also vaguely Marxist nationalists. They just want to beat back some room from the Sinhalese.

According to that linked article, they're responsible for two-thirds of all the suicide bombings in the world.

More on them here.

sdv (non-human)

09:20 / 29.07.05

Grant

Worth reviewing the tamil tigers website which emphasizes the military aspects of the struggle. The suicides mentioned are not defined by the murder of civilians but in terms of military action.

http://www.tamiltigers.net/fallencomrades/fallen_comrades.html

Consequently whilst 'suicide' may happen within the context of the struggle for national liberation, it is not the same as the current islamist inspired suicide bombings.

steve

ONLY NICE THINGS

10:19 / 29.07.05

So... if a suicide bombing is done with a posting to a website describing its military intentions, it is not in fact a suicide bombing, because suicide bombings have to be religious in nature?

14:46 / 29.07.05

Arguably you could say they are merely the programmed human missiles of those with the intentions but that is a terrible proposition.

I think this is exactly what a suicide bomber is.
It is a terrible proposition, but that doesn't make it less real, or possible.

I like the article about the Tamil Tigers that grant posted because it shows that in every instance of suicide bombers being used there is an overlying goal of territorial pursuit. Religion seems to be the means by which bombers ready their minds for the task.

15:14 / 29.07.05

it strikes me that religion is the means whereby many people prepare themselves for arduous and frightening tasks.

16:04 / 29.07.05

it's kind of sad but true,
That could be an interesting thread in itself.
It has to be a mind shattering ordeal to kill 20 strangers.

16:07 / 29.07.05

oh, nevermind there is one

14:35 / 03.08.06

Recent events have brought this thread back to mind, and I found myself browing wikipedia's material on the history of suicide bombing.

I didn't know (or had thoroughly forgotten) that the first suicide attacks in Israel were carried out by the Japanese Red Army, a group which went on to train the Popular Front for Liberation of Palestine, which is something like a Marxist (and thus anti-religious) wing of the PLO.

Page: 1(2)