Most suicide bombers are Muslim

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ilocia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

Ilocia

Guest
Most suicide bombers are Muslim

Suicide missions are not always religiously motivated, but according to Oxford University sociologist Diego Gambetta, editor of Making Sense of Suicide Missions, when religion is involved, the attackers are always Muslim. Why? The surprising answer is that Muslim suicide bombing has nothing to do with Islam or the Quran (except for two lines). It has a lot to do with sex, or, in this case, the absence of sex.

What distinguishes Islam from other major religions is that it tolerates polygyny. By allowing some men to monopolize all women and altogether excluding many men from reproductive opportunities, polygyny creates shortages of available women. If 50 percent of men have two wives each, then the other 50 percent don’t get any wives at all.

So polygyny increases competitive pressure on men, especially young men of low status. It therefore increases the likelihood that young men resort to violent means to gain access to mates. By doing so, they have little to lose and much to gain compared with men who already have wives. Across all societies, polygyny makes men violent, increasing crimes such as murder and rape, even after controlling for such obvious factors as economic development, economic inequality, population density, the level of democracy, and political factors in the region.

However, polygyny itself is not a sufficient cause of suicide bombing. Societies in sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean are much more polygynous than the Muslim nations in the Middle East and North Africa. And they do have very high levels of violence. Sub-Saharan Africa suffers from a long history of continuous civil wars—but not suicide bombings.

The other key ingredient is the promise of 72 virgins waiting in heaven for any martyr in Islam. The prospect of exclusive access to virgins may not be so appealing to anyone who has even one mate on earth, which strict monogamy virtually guarantees. However, the prospect is quite appealing to anyone who faces the bleak reality on earth of being a complete reproductive loser.

It is the combination of polygyny and the promise of a large harem of virgins in heaven that motivates many young Muslim men to commit suicide bombings. Consistent with this explanation, all studies of suicide bombers indicate that they are significantly younger than not only the Muslim population in general but other (nonsuicidal) members of their own extreme political organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah. And nearly all suicide bombers are single.

psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20070622-000002.xml
 
How does the author explain, ten year old girls being trained to be suicide bombers? see fox news

:confused:
 
Actually most suicide bombers are Hindu.

Try reading THIS article to hear from someone who knows what he’s talking about on what situation spawns suicide bombers. It’s got nothing to do with polygyny; which if that article had bothered to do some more research on they’d see 50% of Muslim men don’t have more than one wife, it’s actually about 1-2%; hardly significant.
 
See the date of the news, my dear…

July 18, 2005… compared to July 3, 2007… alot of things changed…:rolleyes:
 
Oh no, not Robert Pape again.

Where does he say most suicide bombers are Hiindus?

Please read this on a discussion of Pape’s theory. Interesting theory all right but flawed. geocities.com/martinkramerorg/PapeKramer.htm

So why did OBL think Americans were occupying Saudi Arabia when we were there to protect them from Saddam? It is because of their bigotted religious conviction that Arabia is only for the Muslims. Non-Muslim troops, even at the invitation of the Saudi king, is somehow an ‘occupation’.

What Pape fails to examine is the role of Islam in facilitating suicide bombing through promising eternal salvation and 72 sex slaves in paradise. This doctrine of eternal reward for suicide bombing is not found in Hinduism or any of the secular ism like communism, marxism etc. Only in Islam.

That is the key characteristic of Islam that critics point to.
 
The surprising answer is that Muslim suicide bombing has nothing to do with Islam or the Quran (except for two lines).
Actually, while there may only be two lines that advocate violence via bombing in the Quran, there are 512 that advocate violence. There is a politically correct myth out there that Islam is the religion of peace, and if you buy into that, I suggest reading the Quran, as it will change your opinion pretty fast.

The bottom line is that Islam is a religion that is bent on world domination at any cost.
 
Actually most suicide bombers are Hindu.

Try reading THIS article to hear from someone who knows what he’s talking about on what situation spawns suicide bombers. It’s got nothing to do with polygyny; which if that article had bothered to do some more research on they’d see 50% of Muslim men don’t have more than one wife, it’s actually about 1-2%; hardly significant.
How many Hindu suicide bombers have attacked outside of their own homelands?
 
40.png
Ilocia:
The surprising answer is that Muslim suicide bombing has nothing to do with Islam or the Quran (except for two lines).

IT only takes one line in a holy scripture to turn something into permissible behavior.

Suicide bombing, like terror are only tactics of war. As others have pointed out, the Qur’an is filled with justification for war and stories of war using terror as a tactic.

We really need to be calling this homicide bombing because the purpose is not to commit suicide but to kill as many people, usually innocents, as possible. The bomber gets killed because it is the only way their sick pea brains can think of to deliver the explosive package. They have very deficient imaginations.
 
Which two lines are these?
That was kind of my point. I have found no references to bombing in the Koran, but I do find a ton of references to doing harm to the innocent in the name of allah…

Disbelievers will be burned with fire. 2:39, 90

“Fight in the way of Allah.” 2:190, 2:244

Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kill them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. (But if they desist in their unbelief, then don’t kill them.) 2:191-2

War is ordained by Allah, and all Muslims must be willing to fight, whether they like it or not. 2:216

Allah will bestow a vast reward on those who fight in religious wars. 4:74

I could go on, but I think that this makes the point. The point and purpose of Islam is world domination and the killing of anyone that does not submit to the will of Islam. Anybody saying otherwise needs to actually read the holy text of the Islamic religion…not the popular press.
 
More of the “tolerant” teachings in the Quran.

8:022 Unbelievers are worse than the vilest beasts
98:06 Those who disbelieve, among the People of the Scripture and the idolaters, will abide in fire of hell. They are the worst of created beings.
3:151 We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve,
8:60 Terrorize thereby the enemy of Allah…
2:191, Slay them wherever ye catch them
2:193, Fight them on until there is no more fitnah (sedition, opposition).
3:28, Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah
4:84, Then fight in Allah’s cause - and rouse the believers
8:12, I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them
8:65, O Prophet! rouse the Believers to the fight

Islam preaches hatred and intolerance against all unbelievers! It is the perfect cult of hate! How anyone can call Islam a religion of “peace” is beyond me!

Vickie
 
Islam preaches hatred and intolerance against all unbelievers! It is the perfect cult of hate!
Here we go again, lets all gang up on Muslims.

Let us first deny them their humanity by labelling them all suicide bombers, then it is ok to persecute suicide bombers because of course they are all the same and being such, are not human.

Once labelled as ‘sick’ ‘in-human’ and ‘evil’ it is then much more easily justifiable to deliver even bigger evil to kill evil.

In the absence of witches and freemasons being largely inaccessible, I guess Muslims are as good a target as any.

I wonder what Christ would say in response to this thread!!!
 
More of the “tolerant” teachings in the Quran.

8:022 Unbelievers are worse than the vilest beasts
98:06 Those who disbelieve, among the People of the Scripture and the idolaters, will abide in fire of hell. They are the worst of created beings.
3:151 We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve,
8:60 Terrorize thereby the enemy of Allah…
2:191, Slay them wherever ye catch them
2:193, Fight them on until there is no more fitnah (sedition, opposition).
3:28, Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah
4:84, Then fight in Allah’s cause - and rouse the believers
8:12, I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them
8:65, O Prophet! rouse the Believers to the fight

Islam preaches hatred and intolerance against all unbelievers! It is the perfect cult of hate! How anyone can call Islam a religion of “peace” is beyond me!

Vickie
Vickie, that is an excellent point, and one that should be stated over and over. The issue at hand is that those who are critical of Islamic teaching and call it what is actually is are branded as purveyors of hate speech. The modern media and political types line up to say that Islam is peaceful, as the only alternative would be to support Christian teaching which they cannot stand. So, in a futile effort to “just get along” they placate these groups time and again. I, for one, am sick of being lied to by them. A classic example took place after the recent rash of car bombings in Brittan. The PM had the audacity to stand up and say nothing of this situation being a Muslim or religious issue. Recently, the EU stated that it was now inappropriate to use the terms Muslim and Islamic in association with terror attacks that were prepetrated by Islamic religious groups. It is all propaganda to avoid the real issue: Islam is bent on world domination. These groups deny that, as they denied Hitler prior to his march into France. Winston Churchill was, at one point, the lone voice in the world saying Hitler was a problem, and people just like the ones calling Islam peaceful stood there denouncing him until the bombs started falling in England.

The world is lost in a pacifist’s dream on this issue, and it is time that they woke up about it. How many people have to die before we call this what it is…a holy war. We did not start it, but we will have to fight it. If we fail to do so, we will loose all religious freedom and the world will be a much darker place.

While I do not advocate all out war with Islam, I do think we need to sober up about why these attacks are taking place and what the real motivation of these people is.
 
Here we go again, lets all gang up on Muslims.

Let us first deny them their humanity by labelling them all suicide bombers, then it is ok to persecute suicide bombers because of course they are all the same and being such, are not human.

Once labelled as ‘sick’ ‘in-human’ and ‘evil’ it is then much more easily justifiable to deliver even bigger evil to kill evil.

In the absence of witches and freemasons being largely inaccessible, I guess Muslims are as good a target as any.

I wonder what Christ would say in response to this thread!!!
Thanks for the free propaganda and the bleeding heart. I just love reading that stuff. You can deny the teaching of Islam as long as you like, but it is what it is. That is why there is no public outcry among Muslims when these bombings happen…because they are supported.

The bottom line here is that nobody is calling for some mass extermination of Muslims. No, we are calling for the blinders to come off so that people can realize what the true drive behind islam is…a one world Islamic religion where anyone outside the fold is killed.

This, of course, is advocated over and over in the Koran.
 
Thanks for the free propaganda and the bleeding heart. I just love reading that stuff. You can deny the teaching of Islam as long as you like, but it is what it is. That is why there is no public outcry among Muslims when these bombings happen…because they are supported.

The bottom line here is that nobody is calling for some mass extermination of Muslims. No, we are calling for the blinders to come off so that people can realize what the true drive behind islam is…a one world Islamic religion where anyone outside the fold is killed.

This, of course, is advocated over and over in the Koran.
👍 👍 👍
 
I think some Muslims when they cite Robert Paper are utilizing the “all or nothing” fallacy to refute the link between Islam and suicide bombing. To me the link is obvious since Islam is the only religion that rewards an adherent who kills himself in the course of killing enemies. I doubt Jesus Christ taught this. I doubt Buddhat taught this. But Muhammad sure did.

Questions I think we should ask:
1.Why are there suicide bombings besides Jihadists?

The answer is that suicide bombing is not caused by Islamic theology but by other factors. People have to believe in a cause so strong that they are willing to sacrifice themselves in the struggle.

Combatants do this all the time - knowing their chances of survival in a particular engagement may be low - but they still fight on - hoping to kill more of the enemies in the sacrifice of their own lives. We thank some of these people for the many liberties we enjoy today.
  1. Does Islam cause suicide bombings?
    The answer is no. Islam does not cause suicide bombings. This is the red herring that the Islamists employ. There are some grievances that turn people into suicide bombers. Some of which are Marxist/Communists (like the Tamil Tigers) but many are nationalist / Islamic (like Hamas and Fatah).
  2. If Islam does not cause suicide bombing then why are we beating up on Islam?
    Because Islam facilitates and encourages suicide bombings. It provides the religious sanction and the moral backing for suicide attacks. No other religion does this. Though the Marxists may do this - it does not excuse Islam as a purported source of moral guidance from displaying the same characteristics. If so, then it becomes a tu quoque argument. The Muslim is basically saying, if Marxist heathens suicide-bomb then why can’t we?
There is no moral justification for targeting innocent civilians in any struggle. Just because the Marxist Tamil Tigers have erred in this regard does not give the Islamists a free pass to do the same. We should be condemning both for suicide bombings against civilian targets.
  1. How do we stop jihadists from engaging in terrorism?
    There are two schools of thought. - we either give in to their demands or we fight them to the death.
 
  1. What are the Jihadist demands/grievances?
These are:
a. we do not support Israel.

b. we support Palestinian sovereignty.

c. we remove all troops from the Middle East.

d. we do not support “tyrannical Arab rulers”.

e. we permit a khalifate to re-establish, including the right to use force to re-instate it.

f. we permit Iran to produce nuclear weapons.
  1. Are these demands/grievances realistic?
    No.
We must support Israel because without our support the Jews would be annihilated.

We do support Palestinian sovereignty, except their claims on the land of Israel. Camp David and Oslo are evidence that we do support Palestinian self-determination. However, they have consistently missed their opportunities for peace because they want the unrealistic aim of destorying Israel.

Our troops in the Middle East are / were either by invitation or to enforce UN resolutions. If the Taliban had not harboured Osama bin Laden we would not have invaded. We had not strategic interests in Afghanistan. If Saddam had not defied UN resolutions and kicked out the UN weapons inspectors the US would not have invaded. If Saddam had not invaded Kuwait and threatened to over-run Saudi Arabia, US troops would not have been sent to the Gulf. In short, US troops would not be in the Middle East if not for actions by the Muslims themselves.

Our support for ‘tyrannical Arab rulers’ is nothing short of illusory. We do not send our troops to patrol the streets of RIyadh and Cairo, Damascus and Amman to prop up the Arab rulers. In short, the claim that we ‘support’ the tyrannical Arab rulers is specious. Our support is no greater or less than what we give to all other friendly governments. At present we have only 500 US training personnel in Saudi Arabia, having withdrawn all our troops after the demise of Saddam’s military force. We have no troops in Jordan, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, or any of the Gulf states. The only troops we have are in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We cannot permit a khalifate to re-establish because it would mean a global war. The historical khalifate includes European countries like Greece, Malta and Cyprus. There is no democratic groundswell among the many Muslim countries of the Middle East to coalesce into a khalifate. The only people advocating a khalifate know that it can only be established through brutality and war.
 
We cannot allow Iran to possess nuclear weapons as it would destabilize the region. The Sunnis and Shiites hate each other almost as they hate disbelievers. If the Shiites possess nuclear weapons they would seek to increase their influence against their Sunni adversaries - including turning Lebanon and Iraq into Shiite states. This can only destabilize the Middle East and lead to an arms race whereby the Sunnis will also want their own nuclear weapons. It is in nobody’s interests for Iran to possess nuclear weapons. No country is presently threatening to invade Iran or destabilize the government. All the Western states, including the US, are reconciled with letting the Iranian people decide who governs them. In short, Iran has no natural enemies threatening its borders (now that Saddam has been eliminated). There is no need for Iran to possess nuclear weapons.
  1. So how can we resolve conflict with the Muslims?
    Seeing that the Islamist grievances are unrealistic and we can never accede to their demands, we should withdraw from the Middle East militarily and let them resolve their problems by themselves.
We should also re-examine our relationship with the Muslim world. Perhaps reduced immigration of Muslims into the West might be a good idea - to prevent social problems (as per France and the Scandinavian countries) or prevent terrorist attacks (as per the British bombers).

We should also eliminate all financial, economic, and military aid to all Muslim countries. There are more deserving countries we can direct our largesse to - such as the African nations. We should stop paying to upkeep the Palestinians. Let their Muslim brothers pay the tab. We should withdraw all our troops from the Middle East. We should increase our support for Israel. We should spend the money developing alternative energy sources.

In short, we need a new Monroe Doctrine. Our actions must only be punitive. Our relationships must only be commercial. We should let them decide who their rulers are. In time they will realize that since the oil business is the only business they have to support their economies it would be counter-productive to threaten the global supply of oil. It will be difficult but achievable.

I don’t think we needed a protracted engagement in Afghanistan or Iraq. We need short and sharp punitive engagements with clearly defined aims.
 
Rodrigo Bivar posted:
We should also re-examine our relationship with the Muslim world. Perhaps reduced immigration of Muslims into the West terrorist attacks (as per the British bombers).
Iin the UK we have a compassionate and effective set of legislation which allows people in iminent life threatening danger in their own country to come to Britain to seek asylum.

These bombers were offered asylum. It is difficult to see how such minds could then try to cut off the very hand that fed them. Perhaps we kneed to re-think our attitudes towards asylum seekers.
We should also eliminate all financial, economic, and military aid to all Muslim countries. There are more deserving countries we can direct our largesse to - such as the African nations. .
Agreeing 100% about supporting the African Union, this would seem a more deserving cause and help build political resistance against extremist nations

It does not follow that ALL Muslim countries are bad just as not all Muslims are. It is also forcast that population increase means that by 2100, Britain will be a Muslim country. Does this mean that Uncle Sam would not come to our aid

if we were most in need of it!
We should stop paying to upkeep the Palestinians. Let their Muslim brothers pay the tab. We should withdraw all our troops from the Middle East. We should increase our support for Israel. We should spend the money developing alternative energy sources.
In short… Our actions must only be punitive. We need short and sharp punitive engagements with clearly defined aims
Experience shows that only fuels terrorism. As fast as you elimiate one, you help create two more at the expense of your own troops, which in my view is a price too dear to pay.
I don’t think we needed a protracted engagement in Afghanistan or Iraq.
Unfortunately we have destabilised the region, we now have a duty to remain until law and order is restored.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top