Reddit reviews Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism

Seems to be. One aspect it doesn't cover, however, is that the Rubio and Trump views come from primary campaigning versions of themselves. Even with Trump, it's reasonable to assume their true views aren't quite as stringent as the rhetorically simple messages they put out for primary voters. And I say that being personally as far from a Rubio/Trump/Cruz supporter as you might find.

The revealing part is that about Bush—he really did couch the argument that starkly, at least publicly. The author writes:
> Bush called al-Qaeda “the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century … they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism, and totalitarianism.” Many Republicans still see the “war on terror” in these epic terms.

In my opinion that's rare for a president, aside from instances of actual threats of world domination, like that of the Nazis and USSR; and it's an unwise thing to do...but that's also my opinion. That un-nuanced, all/nothing choice was successful at the time. But I've since seen even conservatives criticize this, saying it ended up weakening the U.S. position. Yet most of the republican candidates are now back where Bush/Cheney left off.

The portion about Obama subscribing to the Robert Pape argument is interesting.
> ...that the great driver of suicide terrorism is not jihadist ideology but occupation

I've not seen this argument made about Obama before. It does seem correct. I'm looking forward to reading the essay cited... which is actually a book, here on Amazon. (As I was writing this I assumed it was shorter form, online content. Good as the book maybe, if anyone can point me to online content discussing Pope's argument, I'd love to see it.)

On a related note, something I got off another redditor:

> Robert Pape Uni. of Chicago, studied every suicide bombing and attack around the globe from 1980 through 2003 - 315 attacks in all:

>"The data show that there is little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any one of the world's religions. . . . Rather, what nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland" - Source

It's not really a paper, so to speak, he organized it really well in a book. Simple read, very straight forward, authentic sources and well cited.

You can find it here: http://www.amazon.com/Dying-Win-Strategic-Suicide-Terrorism/dp/0812973380/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1373188706&sr=8-1&keywords=logic+of+suicide

Until relatively recently, the foremost practitioners of suicide bombing were the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka, who are... well, nominally non-religious, though probably majority Buddhist Hindu, trying to oust a majority-Hindu Buddhist population (the Sinhalese).

At the time Robert Pape's book on suicide bombing, Dying to Win, came out, the Tamil Tigers were still top of the game.

That's getting inside the 20-year limit this sub likes to impose, though.

Longer ago, you might get something out of reading up on the Sabra and Shatila Massacre, carried out by the Christian Falange in Lebanon and the ethnic cleansing during the Bosnian War (including Srebrenica massacre), carried out by units of the (nominally Christian) Serbian army.

In both cases, there's a Christian force on one hand carrying out atrocities against a Muslim population on the other... but the Christian forces are state sponsored, and the Muslims are just kinda... there.

---
EDIT: fixing who's likely to be worshipping who in Sri Lanka; thanks /u/TheOneFreeEngineer.

Robert Pape is a political scientist at the University of Chicago, and the auth of Dying To Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism - original paper as a pdf. He's written and been interviewed about terrorism, especially Daesh. In this interview, he argues against What ISIS Really Wants, and makes the case that they are primarily a nationalist group:
>Wanting territory means there’s a community that wants a state. ISIS, and most suicide groups, are driven by an ideal of nationalism; they want to control their destiny with a state. ISIS is composed of a leadership of about 25 people, which is one-third very heavily religious, for sure; one-third former Saddam [Hussein] military officers who are Baathists, who are secular; and one-third who are Sunni militia, Sunni tribal leaders. That just conveniently is lost in the Wood piece.
It’s definitely the case that ISIS wants to kill people who are not part of its community. But this is normal in nationalist groups. (Hutu wanted to kill Tutsi; they also wanted to kill moderate Hutu who didn’t want to kill Tutsi.)

I looked around but didn't see anything. Robert Pape worked on a similar database for the University of Chicago, and a lot of the data from that project was published in his book Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism -- which, incidentally, came to conclusions very similar to those in the linked-to article.

Well, non-state actors can take advantage of globalization too. Terrorist groups like Al Queda attempt to portray their fight as part of a worldwide Islamic struggle against the west. That wouldn't be possible without globalized media. Furthermore, things like bomb schematics are available on the internet, fundraising can be channeled through various manifestations of globalization (charities, companies, etc.), and calls to action can cross state boundaries.

Additionally, as far as coercion goes, the state is still subject to coercion even if it's interconnected. In fact, if the connections themselves can be leveraged, the state may be more vulnerable to certain types of coercion. Sneaking bombs or other things into a heavily connected state will be easier than an autarkic one for instance. Research has shown that terrorist tactics are capable of coercing states if the objectives being pursued fit certain categories. I'd recommend reading Robert Pape's book on the subject of suicide terrorism called Dying to Win.

Alright I hope you get this. Sounds like you are a lot like I was growing up. I would read a book a week and listen to two. haha. these were books i had to grow into a lot of times. so don't get discouraged. some of these are tough but they'll help you in the long run. promise.

anyways.. here's my list.

Foreign Policy

-Dying to Win- Science and strategy behind suicide terrorism

-Imperial Hubris- good book by a CIA vet on what to expect because of US foreign policy

-Blowback- Same type of book as above, but better.

-The Looming Tower- a good history and account for Sept 11






Economics and Money

-Freakonomics- Ever wonder about he economics of drug dealing, including the surprisingly low earnings and abject working conditions of crack cocaine dealers? This book is fantastic.

-Outliers- Gladwell is a master of minute detail. This book helps you focus on the future.

-Blink-Great book on intuitive judgement

-The Age of Uncertainty- the best book I've ever read on the fight between Capitalism and Communism

Biology and Science

-Why Do Men Have Nipples- a general Q&A book. Good for info you can use at a party or to impress somebody. really random stuff.

-A Short History of Nearly Everything- Humorous take on some heavy heavy science. Easier to read than people think.

-The Ancestors Tale- It was hard picking just one Dawkins book, so I gave you two.

-The Greatest Show on Earth- Dawkins is the world-standard for books on biology and evolution in layman's terms.

Good Novels

-1984-Hopefully no explanation needed

-A Brave New World- a different type of dystopian universe compared to 1984. read both back to back.

-The Brothers Karamazov- My favorite piece of Russian Literature. It made me think more than any other book on this list honestly. I can't recommend it enough.

-Catch-22- There are so many layers to this book. So much symbolism, so much allusion. You must pay attention to get the full affect of this book. Great satire. Masterfully written.

-Alas Babylon- Yet another dystopian novel. This time about what would happen after a world wide nuclear war.

-Slaughterhouse-5 Vonnegut is a badass. And that's really all there is to know. I read this book in one day. It was that good. Satire on WW2.

Philosophy

-Sophies World- Good intro to a lot of basic principles of the major philosophers

-Beyond Good and Evil- Nietzche can get REALLY depressing because he is a nihilist but this book is extremely quotable and will give fresh perspective on a lot of things.

-Atlas Shrugged- Ayn Rand's masthead. Its a novel, but its also a commentary on her precious objectivism.


So there you have it. My short list of books to read. I can get deeper into certain subjects if you want me to. Just PM me.

Indeed. When Harris writes:

> Our humanities and social science departments are filled with scholars and pseudo-scholars deemed to be experts in terrorism, religion, Islamic jurisprudence, anthropology, political science, and other diverse fields, who claim that where Muslim intolerance and violence are concerned, nothing is ever what it seems. Above all, these experts claim that one can’t take Islamists and jihadists at their word: Their incessant declarations about God, paradise, martyrdom, and the evils of apostasy are nothing more than a mask concealing their real motivations.

any skeptic should wonder how it's possible that only Harris manages to see the Truth while all others fail. Are they really biased by wishful thinking? Do they have no evidence to support their conclusions?

Atheists often claim to follow a rational and scientific method, willing to follow the evidence whereever it may lead.

Well, then. What sort of evidence does Harris provide? All I have ever seen is anecdotes, counter-factuals, and an appeal to intution. This is hardly good evidence. He never managed to get a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal about the topic, as far as I know.

What about the so called "pseudo-scholars" in the humanities and social science departments? What sort of evidence do they have? It seems they do take terrorists by their word. They do in-depth interviews with former terrorists. They do statistical analysis where terrorists come from. They do a careful comparison of the available data.

What's more: Their explanation is consistent with what we know about motivations for violence, in general, and what we know about the relative impotence of religious doctrines for getting people to do good.

There's hardly any doubt who's closer to the truth, here.

Hoffman's book represents the orthodox western security agencies view of terrorism, it's superficial, partisan in its approach, and there are far better books out there. Its good for describing the media/Terror relationship but not much else.]

This is well worth a read, Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism

and this: Understanding Terror Networks

Yes there is a way to reason; pull out and apologize. Stop funding pro-western dictators like in Saudi Arabia (aka MECCA) and let them run their own lives. Eventually they'll come around and emulate us voluntarily... only difference is our corporations won't have access to their sweet, sweet oil.

A huge issue is Israel. If we took a more hands off approach Israel would be forced to compromise, and the "terrorists" would lose one more reason to hate the US.

Check out Robert Pape's book "Dying to Win"

There are plenty of people who have proposed alternative solutions to violence, such as Michael Scheuer look into it.

Again, writing them off for taking a position you don't like is YOUR bias, not theirs.

For one, the wall annexes large tracts of land and doesn't even wall off all Palestinian communities, seriously questioning the "security" rationale. Further, most studies, such as this one and especially this one suggest that suicide bombing is caused by military occupation, and doesn't occur randomly or because of religion or culture. So assuming that suicide bombings are some kind inherently Palestinian problem that can only be solved by walling them off is pretty loaded. But in any case the wall doesn't wall them off, it goes THROUGH many of their communities in order to annex land.

What were we talking about again?

I haven't heard much from Dr. Pape since youtube videos of several of his presentations starting proliferating around 2010. I've been wanting to hear, 5 years later, if the conclusions from his - books regarding the motivations of suicide terrorists still hold true with ISIS as they did al Qaeda years earlier.

I am also curious about his views on Libya now. He was interviewed weeks after the multi-national intervention in Libya had begun and he listed it as an example, a precedent, of "healthy" intervention. There's a comment on that video that asks several important questions:

> So my question(s) for Dr. Pape -

• Do you still see the Libyan intervention as a successful "healthy" intervention precedent or do you wish to recant or change your view of the interventions in Libya expressed in this video?
  

• And if not "healthy", then do you, in retrospect, believe that the intervention itself was ill-advised?
  
• Or do you simply believe that certain (unforeseeable) events occurred after the intervention that led to the current mess?
  
  

• And if [it was unforeseeable events], what events and how would you have tried to avoid them?
  
  

>As an example I bet that the majority in the U.S. would accept serious restrictions on Muslims, something I oppose.

How merciful of you, but I don't think the majority of the US would do such a thing.

>I also think you are well aware that the Brotherhood did so well because of organization not simply popularity.

Regardless of what actually happened, your tidbit is irrelevant because I'm talking about democracy, which is determined by popularity (ideally).

>Do you want a history of wars based on religion? On the horrors in Europe and the Islamic world because of fights over religion? There is a saying that has lots of truth: good people can do good things and bad people can do bad things, but it takes religion to make good people do bad things.

Always a go to argument among atheists while completely disregarding ulterior motives for many of the past wars and also ignoring the thousands of wars that had nothing to do with religion at all. The fact is mankind loves to go to war whether there are religious reasons or not, having an excuse just makes it that much easier. There are a lot of books on these things.

Also, I am of the opinion that if you don't agree with the ideals set by your country, you are more than welcome to leave. No one will be completely ok with everything every country does. Don't like Islam's view on public adultery? Don't live in an Islamic state. Simple.

>Why should I care what a semi-mythic first state was like?

Because that is what this religion is (or rather should be) basing it's ideals on, whether you think it's mythic or not.

>Do you think the Islamic parties in Egypt are going to try for something like that first state or more like Saudi?

Probably like the first Islamic state. The majority of the Muslim world sees the ridiculousness of Saudia Arabia's government.

You've yet to provide a single piece of evidence for anything you have stated. I cannot go through all your points as they are assertions rather than supported statements. Let's try a few and then call it a day. What I am going to do is offer a citation EVERY SINGLE TIME. If you do not reply in kind, I will use this as evidence that you are talking shite.

1. "Something that works due to equal or superior forces, does not work with tiny inferior forces. The belief that it can work with tiny inferior forces, is an ideological belief not based on logic."
   Absolute shit. Total and utter. I honestly don't know where you are getting this from. Please read "How the Weak Win Wars".
   
   
2. "This is a silly thing to say. It's like saying "who cares what they think. They're crazy anyway."
   nationalist (this is the majority of terrorist movements);
   No it is not. You're wrong. Flat out wrong."
   No, I didn't say "who cares what they think" You are the one offering a one-size-fits-all explanation that refuses to take their claims seriously. I am the one saying that different groups have different goals. On trends in the movement, while it is true that nationalist and ethnic goals are declining, they still account for most terrorist movements in the world. See this RAND report's conclusions. Or are RAND not as wise as you? (also note, note that ideology is treated as a political motivator, not inherently terroristic - i.e. used the way I define it; not you).
   
   3."No it is false, naive, and dangerous to glorify them by claiming their ideals are complex and motivations are all different. They do these things because they want to kill people, people that they emotionally hate. They are irrational. They are motivated by various ideologies but they all have one common ideology: That destroying property and killing innocent random people within the area of your enemy, will result in social change."
   You really seem to be struggling with the differences between means and ends. Just because a group targets civilians it does not mean the group's goals are to target civilians. It might mean that they do this because they think it will meet other goals. By your logic, the US army only goes to war because it likes to blow stuff up; not because blowing some stuff up might have political effects. Read Clausewitz. On terrorists and extreme violence read Pape
   
   
   
3. "I don't think you have read any literature at all. You're an ignorant person who wants to oversimplify terrorists to "oh they have all sorts of reasons" and "oh they don't have beliefs or anything, they can be just anyone." you don't make any rational or coherent logical sense. You're just blurting out things that don't follow logically."
   How is saying that terrorist groups have various goals and various beliefs "oversimplify" the issue. It adds complexity. You are the one offering a monocausal explanation. I never said they didn't have beliefs. I am saying they have different beliefs. Oh, and by the way, saying "it's complex" does not mean "it's random" or "we can't understand." It simply means simple answers may not work. On the various goals of terrorists, see Hoffman.
   
   
4. "As they should. Duh. Why are you even mentioning this? Except to act like a little prick who wants to insult people? Grow up you little child. This is no way to talk to someone especially when you clearly show how ignorant you are on the subject."
   I was referring to things that you said political scientists ignored. I was telling you they didn't. So don't get your nose out of bent when I contradict you. Admittedly my tone is not nice. But then neither is yours.
   
   
5. "Yes analysts. And those analysts agree with me, not you."
   You haven't mentioned a single person by name. Everyone I have mentioned is a peer-reviewed political scientist. Show me your sources. I hope you are smart enough to know that some sources are less credible than others.
   
   
6. "(which incidentally, is rarely necessary to be able to form a coherent analysis).
   And how does that make any logical sense? Absolutely it is necessary to make accurate analysis which you clearly failed to do."
   You said that you cannot study terrorism without clearance. I said you can as (a) there are tons of cases one can study that are now declassified, (b) many viable methods don't require clearance (e.g. interviews), and (c) unless you are trying to explain a specific operation or attack you do not necessarily need every single bit of fine-grained information. Your question determines your method. On designing research please see KKV or Brady & Collier
   
   
7. "But learning begins with admitting you are wrong and/or ignorant
   Yeah so admit that you are wrong and ignorant."
   I have been wrong on many things, many times. It took me some time to become smart enough to figure out when to let go of ideas. It is not easy for most people. But buddy, don't fucking fool yourself, you are not winning this argument.
   
   
8. "You're the one trying to justify terrorism here and oversimplifying the issue into "oh we cannot claim they are motivated by any ideology. they are just motivated by what they are motivated by." Kind of insane bullshit that I don't know what blog you read it from but it's clearly incoherent."
   I am not trying to justify anything. I am trying to explain it. Studying lung cancer doesn't mean you are in favor of cancer, or against cigarette companies for that matter. It simply means trying to explain it. I'm not the one with blinkers on here.
   "It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle." - Sun Tzu.
   
   If you don't respond with proper citations don't expect a reply. But, whatever you do don't chalk it up as an intellectual win.
   
   EDIT: for formatting, before I gave up.
   
   

It isn't about Islam. Before 2003 the Tamil Tigers were responsible for the most suicide bombings. Good book on suicide terrorism

>You have been racist

No, as I said, that was your misunderstanding. Facts about someone else's racist propaganda, and facts about how your attitudes fit into a particular Eurocentric and culturally condescending ideological tradition that is obscuring your objectivity, aren't themselves racist.

>you have lied

No I haven't, rather, you are in denial.

>So when I asked, I was thinking of the French invasion of Algeria that happened in 1830, which was 185 years ago, But that's why I asked, rather than simply asserting

This reflects even worse on your level of knowledge and understanding. What demon could possibly have possessed you into believing that colonial tensions somehow disappear after the colonized have officially become a subject people? Forget academic standards, this is just an absence of common sense.

You know what, I can't stand much more of this. If at some point in time you do feel like learning rather than spewing nonsense that you pull out of your ass, you can get started by reading these:

-Here is a pdf book I am currently reading on the psychology of terrorism. Know thy enemy.

-Here is an Amazon link to Robert Pape's Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism. It only deals with suicide terror, though, but it's good to provide an orienting paradigm and is a solid introduction to this field of political science/anthropology. Funny that I always thought atheists were supposed to be big on science, but I guess ethnic conflicts are a universal mind-killer.

-[Here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientalism_(book) is a Wikipedia page on Edward Said's Orientalism, a huge and dry tome that is nevertheless a seminal work in postcolonial studies and one for which its core thesis is generally regarded to be true for the time period studied.

edit: The Orientalism article mentioned Bernard Lewis as a critic of Said, and he is actually a good read too. His book (in pdf here) What Went Wrong chronicles history from the Muslim side, and discusses how certain shortcomings and attitudes in Middle Eastern culture contribute to the violence and backwardness we see today.

Suicide terrorism first gained traction in the 80s with Hezbollah. The bombers were not overwhelmingly religious, nor muslim. The Tamil Tigers learned from this and conducted a number of suicide campaigns. They are a Hindu group.

The PKK also started suicide bombing campaign against the Turks.

Muslims absolutely do not have a monopoly on suicide bombings and to argue it is to argue from a position of ignorance.

If you want to know what suicide bombers do have in common, I suggest you read 'Dying to Win'. They include:

1. A occupied community fighting against a foreign, militarily superior, liberal democratic government
   
2. A difference in religion
   
   http://www.amazon.com/Dying-Win-Strategic-Suicide-Terrorism/dp/0812973380
   

No it hasn't been debunked at all. What happened in Nice is a tragedy (I lived there for 6 months and had to message several friends to make sure they weren't dead), but we cannot simply ignore the other side of the dynamic, specificially the racist and imperialist policies of the West.

I am reading a book on the topic currently, and the common myths about religion being the primary cause are fallacious and perpetuate the problem. Suicide attackers sometimes frame their violence in religious terms, but the goals are almost always nationalistic and unfortunately more effective after the use of such violence.

Let's stop with the tribalistic, ethnocentric blabbering.