Discover Dialogue: Anthropologist Scott Atran — Here is an excelent interview that everyone should read to get a grip on the suicide bomber mentality. It comes in handy when people talk about “educating the poor” to stop this phenomenon. Educating the poor should be a good idea anyway, but in fact is more likely to create more bombers if logic holds out. Weird but true.
Q: Why do you regard the popular stereotype of the suicide terrorist as nonsense?
A: The CIA released a report in 2001 on the psychology and sociology of terrorism, and they basically said these people are perfectly sane. If you look at the history of these kinds of extreme acts, they’re pretty much directed by middle-class or higher-middle-class intellectuals. They always have been. Never have they been directed by wacky, crazed, homicidal nuts. The Japanese kamikaze of World War II were, by the way, extremely intelligent guys. If you read their diaries, they were German romantics, reading Goethe and Schiller, and quite conscious of the efforts of the state to manipulate them.
Nasra Hassan, who is a Pakistani relief worker working in Gaza for a number of years, interviewed about 250 family members, recruiters, and survivors, completely independently. She was not aware of Merari’s work, and she found exactly the same thing. Alan Krueger, an economist at Princeton University, has done long-term studies with Hezbollah and Hamas. His research shows that not only are suicide terrorists significantly more educated than their peers, they are also significantly better off. According to Krueger, although one-third of Palestinians live in poverty, only 13 percent of Palestinian suicide bombers do; 57 percent of bombers have education beyond high school versus 15 percent of the population of comparable age.
A couple of weeks ago National Public Radio reported a story on the Chicago Project on Suicide Terrorism, led by University of Chicago political scientist Robert Pape. The Project compiled the most extensive data-base of suicide bombings. His conclusions include the observation that suicide bombers are not impelled by religion, but by the occupation of a vastly superior force from a democratic society. Usually due to the lack of equivalent weapons, the resorting to human bombs becomes their most effective weapon.
This report was carried over two days and may be found at
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4719671
It doesn’t dovetail with Scott Atran’s theory, but it makes good listening.
Very interesting. Especially this answer to the question of whether science will ever replace religion: “There is no society that survives more than a generation or two that isn’t religiously based–even the Soviet Union, where half the people were religious. Thomas Jefferson’s unitarian God fell by the wayside.”
If this is true, this makes me wonder what will happen to Europe in the next couple generations.
We had a convoluted discussion about this, just last night. Have you seriously examined the Metallica-sounding “Army of One” recruitment commercials, lately? Behind the music, the pitch is that you can be a hero to your nation — no longer the usual, “see the world and get an education” — regardless of the voiceover.
Everyone starts these discussions by saying, “how can these suicide bombers do it?” Fact is, we’ve all been raised to admire folks who did exactly the same thing. Usually it was John Wayne or Henry Fonda giving up their lives, heading out for a suicide mission in WW2 or stopping the Red Menace in Korea. It’s part of all military cultures. The hero who gives up his life to save the wagon train.
Only they’re not usually promised a place in heaven. Just the adoring family, the neighbors, the loved ones who get to “remember”.
It’s religious fanataism, plain and simple. There is no way to reason with them. If you don’t believe as they do, you die. The Catholics were the same way a thousand years ago.
Great. Another stereotype. And here I thought we had plenty already.
Anthony, the argument is that there is really NO stereotype unless you call being normal (as it were) a stereotype. SO now, by your thinking, someone who is not a stereotype is actually a stereotype by not being one. What’s the Latin phrase for this convoluted logic? Anyone?
And as for the comment that we have enough stereotypes already. Wouldn’t an infinite number be better than a lesser number. Think about it.
This coming from someone who just a few days ago generalized that Arabs are terrorists.
You can’t have it both ways.
Also seeing as the reason you moderate comments is to prevents flames. I guess that doesn’t apply to you though huh?
But to answer your question – The lack of a stereotype can indeed be a stereotype.
I’m dumbfounded by your logic..
What EXACTLY are the “both” ways I’m trying to have it??
Anthony,
cite the example of “arabs are terrorists” please.
I don’t think so. And, which way is “both ways”? Why can’t a person see both sides of the situation and not take one side? Since when?
You confuse me.
As much as the “victims” would like everyone to believe, all self-sacrificing “terrorists” are surely not just ignorant psychotics. It’s simply an effective method of fighting a war against a larger more dominant force especially when you consider that you would likely die in “normal” battle anyway with alternatively little effectiveness for your cause.
Also, I don’t see why this is all that big of a revelation. The U.S. has historically exalted the idea of Nathan Hale that ” I regret that I have but one life to give for my country”. Was this a guy a nutcase too? This really just smacks of ideological hypocrisy. I don’t see how someone like G. Bush, who is pushing his narrow religious ideology on the world, can rightfully and fairly use the word “terrorist” to describe anyone else without some self-reflection. Of course, that is unless you define “terrorist” as someone who is preventing you from doing what you want to do.
Dumbfounded huh? I could have told you that a long time ago!
Both ways – Trying to say that Arabs are terrorists, and then a while later posting about how terrorists don’t have a stereotype. Now unless I’m missing something (which I must) that is both ways – Using a stereotype to define a terrorist, and then going on to say there are no stereotypes.
Really John – I think your a smart man. But I do think you allow your political position to get the best of you. I also think your blog can be a bit too left for my tastes… I’ll stay for the rest of the blog though.
In a attempt to keep things at least a bit civil I’ll just quit here, and award you the “win” this time 🙂 (Yes… ie I give up)
Anthony if being against BIG government, deficits, unilateral war, open borders, political correctness, croneyism, attack on personal liberty, corporate ownership and control of media, diminishing competition, incompetence at catching Bin-Laden, and dirty tricks out of the White House is “left” to you then I am indeed dumbfounded since these are the genral themes of this blog. The only thing conservative that I can see that Bush has done was a tax cut. And that looks like a publicity stunt. Yet he is every conservative’s hero for apparently one reason only: because he’s not Clinton.Seems nutty.
Dear Anthony and others,
From what I’ve observed…..what is “conservative” in America today is pro-big business (corporate everything) anti-monopoly abolishment, free-trade in open enterprise (meaning Ma Bell breaking up, and now, SBC and Qwest…and their silly tactics, So, conservative is now all about taking rights away from the individual — lack of protection, no relief from corporate greed (like the cell phone companies charging bogus “city access fees” that the cities never had on the books, muchless receive) , allowing unregulated industry….not to mention “banks” (heck, even my insurance company is now a bank…as is Spegiel, and about a zillion other companies..) promoting outlandish, and never ending credit card offers while legislators limit bankruptcy filings for INDIVIDUALS (but not corporations) allowing an unregulated agency to set up “cheX” sytem….after allowing predatory mega-banks to re-vamping their processing. It’s now legal to process debits-before-credits, and ignoring slamming (i.e. earthlink, aol, etc., among many others…..doing direct debit, for months and months after the customer has tried to quit, and no-longer receives the services) and banks, unlike ever before, are able to do multiple “bounces” in the same 24-hour period (causing many people to rack up hundreds of dollars in bounce check fees one one NSF check), meanwhile, credit reporting bureaus to do whatever they please — yet have the most impossible “system” to clear up error, having large chunks of a number of state judcial systems perverted to “citations”…(*meaning you must pay thewhole fine BEFORE you get a day in court), …allowing lenders to not follow any of the previously written — on the books — insury laws (written to protect the borrowing public) causing a huge surge in predatory lenders and negative amortization morgages (loans that get BIGGER, as you aren’t paying any balance or all the interest with your monthly payments). So, conservative is defined as screw the little guy over big business and questionable trade practices?
Meanwhile, evidently, conservate is also: open borders, “free trade”, trade deficits, moving industry out of the country, moving jobs out of the country, attacking without provocation and for questionable motives, fancy governement bookkeeping (to fund the army via other departments) and being an evangelical Christian (at the expense of all other religions or concepts). THAT is CONSERVATIVE?
So that’s what the RIGHT wing stand for, and what LEFTY’s complain about?
What about being fiscally conservative? Our government is not.
What about protecting the individual? Protecting states rights (what the REPUBLICANS are supposed to be about, or were historically)? What about what’s moral and correct…and what governement was entrusted to do….. protect all of us?
What do the labels do for any of us? They divide us. In reality, it’s the people against the predatory, money sucking practices of corporate entities that have gotten too big, too rich, and have taken too much power…. we are being “consumerized” to the point of being brain dead.
Is that leftist? OR is the right all about being good little Kmart shopping zombies?
Explain it to me….
meetsy,
Damn you girl / guy
My monitor is smoking after reading your piece. Whew !!!
Chris,
You raise a very valid point I hadn’t thought about. Usually after an attack some (or several) group claims credit in the name of so and so’s liberation. I don’t believe this happened with the London Bombings other then a small irrelevant web site taking notice. This attack appears more and more like some rogue element operating solo.
Meetsy, I agree and I think that out dominant two party system has allowed the Republican Party to become this “Jeckyl & Hyde” beast without public recourse or discourse. Anytime, you complain about the leadership of one of these political parties, people will invariably say that this option is better than the Democrats (or the Republicans) as if there is no other point of view or action other than A or B. Even being an “independent” in this country means you haven’t yet chosen A or B as opposed to meaning that you might choose an alternative C option. It makes it so much easier for the corporations to control the political process which has come to be the rule rather than exception and those that control the “rule book” win the game. : (