Are suicide bombers kamikazes?
Japan’s former ambassador to Lebanon, Naoto Amaki, had a telling conversation with Hezbollah’s Sheik Hassan Nasrallah shortly following al-Qaida’s September 2001 attack on America.
“He told me, ‘We learned how to do suicide missions from the kamikazes,'” Amaki recounted. “Nasrallah said the Shiites all commend the Japanese ‘samurai spirit.'” But the ambassador rejected Nasrallah’s twisted tribute.
Are shahids kamikazes? No way, say the real kamikazes. Now octogenarian veterans, Japanese kamikaze survivors deeply resent being compared to terrorists and don’t hesitate to explain why.
Thanks, Kevin, for the pic!
It is hard to judge this comparison because we know so little about suicide bombers. Soon after 911 I realized that I knew very little about who suicide bombers are; how they’re recruited; what is their motivation; etc etc. I’ve long have an interest in religious extremism.
So, started reading or viewing everything I could on them — and this is not that much stuff!
Some of the better things I’ve found on them is
The Palestinian film, “Paradise Now” ( http://tinyurl.com/g86la ) is one of the better things I’ve seen on the subject.
Another good one is a brief section on a repentant suicide bomber for This American Life called “Know Your Enemy” ( http://tinyurl.com/yppx8a )
Anyway, I feel like I know a thing-or-two about the psychology of suicide bombers and reading the article linked here, it seems like they two groups DO have a lot in similar. (That’s no surprise, of course.)
A valid distinction that the old kamikaze guys make is that they didn’t attack civilians. (as far as I know, this is true.) This is an important distinction although if they were ordered to attack a civilian ship or factory, I’m pretty sure they would have obeyed.
Greg Allen,
You make a very good point.
On a larger scale though, so often we have read about the heroic warriors going off to do a “suicide mission” that will help turn the war. What motivates them?
Some questions this raises are what constitutes a terrorist? Can a terrorist wear a uniform? If a uniform absolves someone of being a terrorist then what would you call them? Does the term “terrorist” only apply to the enemy?
#3 – I’m sure such complex questions make sense to those that can’t see the difference between good and evil.
Point 4 in this article is the biggest difference. Kamikazes truly did not attack civilians. Even the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, while an obvious act of war, cannot be called terrorism. They attacked a perfectly valid military target.
On 9/11, if the perpetrators had used conventional weapons rather than airplanes loaded with civilians AND had attacked only the Pentagon, rather than the World Trade Center, a pair of civilian office buildings, I would call it an act of war, rather than an act of terrorism as the Pentagon is a valid military target.
However, use of civilian aircraft and attacks on civilian office buildings certainly counts as terrorism, not an act of war. To me, this is far beyond anything a kamikaze would have done.
I certainly understand the umbrage with which the remaining kamikazes take this comparison.
#3: Ah, James, you’re such an angry hack. Is everything black and white to you? Must be a quiet, simple life you lead where none of the nuances of life and thought touch you.
There is no difference between a kamikaze pilot and the terrorists of 9/11.
Just as there was no difference between the two above and the SS or Gestapo. The GRU and the Purging Squads under Stalin. Or The KKK, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Identity followers or anyone that uses terrorist tactics.
Even US Cavalry that would burn villages down and kill every man, woman and child in the Indian Wars would qualify as a terrorist.
Just following orders is NO excuse for the barbarism or man against their fellow man. It didn’t stand up in Nuremburg, it won’t fly here and now.
Cursor_
#5
He’s a Mac loving Republican, go figure.
Words have meanings. Failure to use words the way they are meant destroys communications. We might as well draw random words from some list and expect to be understood.
The Japanese miltary was not a terrorist organization because they were not illegal combatents. They did not try to hide who they were. They were genocidal war criminals, but not terrorists. (Kamakazi attacks against military targets are neither terrorist attacks, nor war crimes.)
KKK were terrorists (and Democrats, I might add). Christian Identity? Cite the murders, I cannot think of any.
Gestapo, KGB, and SS? GRU purging squads? US Cavalry in the US West? The ones in uniform were not terrorists. Genocidal war criminals, yes. The ones not in uniform? Well, that might be worth arguing about.
A uniform or lack thereof does not a terrorist make.
Terrorists come in all shapes, sizes, ages, genders and mode of dress. They use terror and fear to control and destroy. They need not have to kill physically to prove their terror. They can destroy your emotions and your minds.
Your view is myopic and only assists other terrorists in hiding behind their sheep’s clothing.
Cursor_
# 4
If targeting civilians is the definition of terrorism, then the bombing of Dresden in WW2 would have to be terrorism. The fact is that an important component of Allied WW2 bombing strategy was to weaken the German’s will to fight by bombing civilians.
Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were non-military targets, but no few would call dropping the bomb on those cities “terrorism”.
#8 “illegal combatants” is just the newest term for irregular military.
Were members of the French resistance “illegal combatants” in WW2? If my country was invaded, I’m not sure I’d care about my legal status in supporting the resistance. Therefore, since our Freedom Fighters might be somebody else’s illegal combatants, why shouldn’t all irregular military be subject to the Geneva convention?
We’re in a war with the newest brand of aggressive, deluded totalitarianism, its strategy is to kill civilians to weaken our resolve to fight them. “Defeating Terrorism” is little different than “making the world safe for democracy”, it’s a good rallying cry.
I think the items mentioned in the article make a valid argument that terrorists and kamikazes are different. More than military targets, kamikazes missions were directed at military objectives whereas terrorist objectives are simply to cause panic. Their only commonality is their secondary goals which is to wear down civilian resolve.
#6
Why don’t you just claim that all soldiers everywhere were terrorists. The Romans were terrorists by your definition.
Additionally, does anyone think that the Kamikazes wouldn’t have crashed their planes into civilian targets if they thought it would have won the war for them?
The history of the Japanese Imperial Army in China and Korea is replete with examples of the Japanese brutalizing civilian populations to achieve their military aims.
#12
Sure they would have because that would have been a military objective. If you can end the war by killing a bunch of civilians, of course you are going to do it. We did it to the Japanese. Terrorists however are not a single group with a single objective. Thus, bombing a civilian population provides no strategic military advantage. There was no war to end because we were not at war with them. Instead, they decided to start a war.
Thomas,
“Terrorists however are not a single group with a single objective.”
Hamas is a terrorist organization with very clear objectives. They have been at war with Israel as irregular military for a long time.
Concerning Al-Qaeda, I hardly think they believe bombing the World Trade Center didn’t achieve a military objective. Winston Churchill bombed Berlin at the beginning of WW2, it achieved purely psychological advantage, but a very, very important one and completely put Hitler off his strategy in the Battle of Britain.
You said: “There was no war to end because we were not at war with them. Instead, they decided to start a war.”
You can terrorize civilian populations to start wars as well. Attacking civilians is simply a military tactic.
#13, Thomas,
Military actions against civilians is rampant in American history. It is doubtful any of the losers thought the terror inflicted against them was warranted.
Tories were “tarred and feathered” and had their property confiscated during the Revolutionary War.
The American Navy (as did the British) preyed upon civilian ships during the War of 1812. The Navy even gave legal letters for Americans to become pirates.
Treaties were written and promptly violated throughout America’s westward expansion.
The competing armies in the Civil War took civilian property, raped, looted, and destroyed what was in their path or have you forgotten Sherman’s march to the sea?
Revolutionaries were summarily shot in the Philippines.
Dresden and Hiroshima have already been mentioned, but they were just the tip of the ice berg. There were more people killed during the Fire Bombing of Tokyo than at Hiroshima.
The “Special Forces” that aided and supported right wing dictators in South and Central America.
Viet Nam and Napalm. Agent Orange. Indiscriminate killing of villagers and poisoning of arable land.
Then we get to the debacles in Afghanistan and Iraq. Bombing wedding parties, shooting first and questioning later, killing foreign journalists and diplomats, fragging American Football heroes, shooting entire families and planting guns, Abu Graib, ….
So does a uniform legitimize what would otherwise be called terrorism?
Mr. Fusion said, Some questions this raises are what constitutes a terrorist?
I’ve heard Muslims say the main difference between us than them is how the bombs are delivered.
While I don’t agree — it’s a hard point to argue. Afterall, doesn’t blowing up a whole hotel full of people in order to kill two people inside constitute terrorism. Well, that was the first salvo in Iraq war, right? America bombed a whole hotel because someone told them Uday and Qusay were in there?
If it was YOUR innocent son or daughter killed in that hotel, it would be hard to convince you that wasn’t terrorism.
Misanthropic Scott said, Point 4 in this article is the biggest difference. Kamikazes truly did not attack civilians.
I agree but it’s a distinction without much meaning. Who doubts — for a moment — that those kamikazis would have targeted a civilian facility if ordered? Attacking civilian targets was routine in WWI — even by the “good guys” like US and England.
The horrific targeting of Dresden is a good example. If I remember correctly from the Ken Burns series, the US objected but England insisted. But America isn’t on much of a high ground, considering how we targeted civilians in Japan.
The United States has something called “The Suicide Mission”. It apparently is an honorable thing to go into battle knowing you will die.
What’s the difference?
The Dirty Dozen is a classic war film. It involves a bunch of men who aren’t expected to survive the mission go in and commit war crimes by killing a bunch of civilians in a castle by running them into the basement and tossing in grenades and fuel.
Honorable, according to American Standards, but suicide attacks by muslims and japanese are not.
#14
There are more terrorist organizations that just Hamas. So, yes it is true that the Hamas organization might have a clearer objective but they are not the only organization with which we are dealing.
> Attacking civilians is
> simply a military tactic.
Yes and no. When you are at war (key component), attacking civilians that aid your opponent’s war effort is common. However, attacking civilians of your own country or civilians that have nothing to do with your opponent’s war effort (and I’m not talking about collateral damage) is not the same thing.
#15
The killing of civilians has been used in many wars. However, in almost all cases, the killing of civilians was done *primarily* to damage a country’s ability to make war as well as to secondarily break their will to continue fighting. Sherman’s march to the sea is in fact the first example of this tactic. There are notable exceptions where psychological damage was primary: Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In both cases, it was believed that the psychological damage could end the war and it did.
The example of the Revolutionary War sounds more like a mob reaction that one sanctioned by the military. Your example of 1812 is again an example of hurting your opponent’s war effort. Privateering (a country legally sanctioning the capture of enemy ships) goes back long before 1812. Dresden was meant to aid the Russian invasion and clearly did not inflict enough psychological damage to end the war. Agent Orange used in the way your describe was meant to eliminate the enemy’s food supply. I could go on. In all cases, attacks on civilians were meant to damage the other country’s war effort.
Suicide bombers generally have no such objective. Shock and sympathy from your opponent’s populace to encourage them to leave are the only objectives. However, they instead end up killing more of their own people than they do of their opponent. Suicide bombers that run under a tank clearly are very much like kamikazes. However, suicide bombers that cut off the heads of reporters or bomb school buses clearly are not.
one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter
“A = B” also means “B = A”.
“Panties on head” equals “Torture”, means torture is trivial, and that’s why the US citizens polled on the acceptability of torture answered that it was acceptable.
Be careful of what you equate.
Aaahhh! Isn’t all this dying for your “culture”, or “country”, or “family” (or whatever it may be) about some kind of ethereal, unfathomable thing called honor?
I’ll bet there were not just a few people during WWII in Japan, Germany and even the good ol’ USA and later Vietnam etc. who thought what a gigantic crock of shit it all was. And I’ll also bet there is a ton of folks in the Middle East who are thinking the same thing about it… right now!
As Pete Seeger said:
“When will they ever learn?”
The KKK of times past were “DixieCrats”, a most curious mutation. Most vote Republican nowadays.
#23, GetSmart,
Your statement is true enough today. In years past though, that was not always the case. The KKK supported whomever they could put into power. In the former Confederacy, that ended up being Democrats.
In 1925, however, during the KKK’s strongest years, they pushed for a Republican Governor and legislature in Indiana. It was the subsequent corruption of those Republicans that also contributed to the quickest decline of the KKK from over 4 million in 1925 to about 100,000 by 1930.