Talk:Suicide attack

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

Suicide attack has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. See the 2005 press source article for details. The citation is in: "[no url Suicide terrorism]", Kompas (Indonesia), July 19, 2005.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (general topics): Military technology and engineering task force Weaponry task force

• Old talk on homicide bombing is at talk:homicide bombing
• Talk:Suicide bombing/Temp - edit conflict version moved out of main namespace
• Archive 1
• Archive 2

Contents 1 Reads Like 2 Profile of a Bomber;Education 3 Inconsistencies and dehumanization 4 unsourced prediction 5 western bias 6 The manufacture and shipping of these devices. . . 7 paragraph from #History 8 Suicide Bombers and Brainwashing 9 overview section needs reworking 10 outstanding objections? 11 World View Tag 12 Fact tags 13 Should strong Muslim support for suicide bombings be included? 14 HAMAS 15 Middle class suicide bombers? Misuse of quote 16 Pape's Dying to Win 17 new section removed for the nonce 18 Popular Culture 19 IRA Suicide Bombings 20 Bush / Dali lama comments. 21 Origins 22 Manga Sewa 23 Removed edit 24 loaded terms in lead 25 Kamikazes and poison 26 Matrys 27 9/11 28 News 29 Suicide mission 30 "foreign insurgents" in Iraq 31 "A Bipartisan Issue" 32 Tactics Section (WP:CITE) 33 Proposal to merge content from Female suicide bomber 34 "Genocide Bombing" 35 New proclamation by Islamic leaders 36 Yes, all very appalling 37 Islamikaze 38 9/11 Political Value? 39 Range of opinions section not factual?

[edit] Reads Like

...a freshman college essay. Full of opiions, original research and steering of facts and conclusions. Hardly encylcopedic. Did I mention tons of rhetorical statements and questions?

Yep, you're right. It's like it was written by a toddler. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.56.241.32 (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Profile of a Bomber;Education

Under the section "Profile of a bomber", this sentence appears:

A recently published paper by Harvard University Professor of Public Policy Alberto Abadie "cast[s] doubt on the widely held belief that terrorism stems from poverty, finding instead that terrorist violence is related to a nation's level of political freedom."

We should say just what the correlation between political freedom and terrorist violence is (more political freedom == less terrorism, or other way around?), not just that they are related. Donutz 04:45, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good point. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:08, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This article should be merged with the article on suicide bombers. I think that sex is not reason enough to add a new article. There can be a "woman" section later in the suicide bomber article if people see fit.

• "Many suicide bombers are educated, with college or university experience, and come from middle class homes" is flap-doodle. The ones actually blowing themselves up have very little understanding of the physical laws of the universe coupled with a warped sense of reality. Though, the Muslim clerics are university educated.

Asseverating, "Many suicide bombers are educated, with college or university experience, and come from middle class homes," makes it clear that the author does not distinguish between a mechanic and a mechanical engineer or an electrician and an electrical engineer.

--66.81.192.13 12:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inconsistencies and dehumanization

#Profile of a bomber says:

. . .most bombers are educated, many with college or university experience, and come from middle class homes. Many do show signs of psychological imbalance, and often had trouble relating socially as children. They often find solace in the ritualistic communion found in extremist circles, which are often headed by charismatic individuals looking for new recruits. Social insecurities notwithstanding, many are concerned for their families. As a result, Israel demolishes the home of suicide bombers and several organizations (former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's Baathist government and The Palestinian Authority among them) are known to provide financial compensation to the families of suicide bombers.

In the next section, #Range of opinions, we find this statement:

"In the West Bank the armed forces of Israel usually demolish homes that they claim belong to families whose children have volunteered for such missions. Since many families encourage their children to volunteer to such acts given the expected financial reward from the Palestinian Authority and other Arab "charity" organizations (Saddam Hussein was known for paying the equivalent of $10,000-25,000 to families of suicide bombers, many of whom live in destitution), the act of demolishing house provides a disincentive to those who are motivated by the idea of financial gain for their families."

One says that the average suicide bomber is educated and comes from a middle class home; the other states that most are from destitute families. Neither cites a source. Which is it?

The latter paragraph is troubling in other ways. Here we find it asserted that families encourage their children to blow themselves up because the family expects financial reward. No mention of the many other motivations for self-sacrifice in warfare (nicely summed up in the first paragraph of #History), nor of the tendency of families to encourage this ("with it or on it", etc.), nor of the fact that Saddam paid benefits to the families of Palestinians who died fighting Israel, whether suicide bombers or not. Left unhinted-at is any parallel to military death pensions, such as the (as I recall) $12,000 plus partial wages paid to the families of dead American soldiers; similarly untouched are the real financial consequences to a family that now has one less able-bodied male to support it. No, apparently we are to believe that greed is the only motivation. (And we are expected to believe this in the absence of any source, no less.) —Charles P. (Mirv) 19:01, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Very good point, this section needs work. The additions that you have suggested would certainly make sense. illWill 19:30, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A broader picture could certainly help. However, it should be noted that many have tried to note the pervasive influence of islamist terrorism and the Palestinian media machine. --Noitall 21:02, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

A broader picture would note that propaganda encouraging self-sacrifice in war is nothing new. Paul Fussell's The Fate of Chivalry and the Assault upon Mother, which discusses the phenomenon during World War I, is a good starting point. —Charles P. (Mirv) 23:16, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I also removed the italicized parts of this passage:

Social insecurities notwithstanding, many are concerned for their families. As a result, Israel demolishes the home of suicide bombers and several organizations (former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's Baathist government and The Palestinian Authority among them) are known to provide financial compensation to the families of suicide bombers.

because the sequence of cause and effect set up here is unsourced and flawed in at least one major way. As I've already pointed out, death benefits were not paid solely to the families of suicide bombers. —Charles P Charle. (Mirv) 30 June 2005 21:14 (UTC)

Charles, the quote is not saying that they are motivated solely by the money. It is saying the money is a signigicant motivation for the family. Also Do you have no grasp of economics? just because families of dead american soldiers often recieve a similar amount of money is irrelevant. First of all $12,000 is not $25,000 and anyways in a poor society $25,000 is a tremendously larger amount of money then it is in a prosperous economy. Also it is foolish to equate death benefits here to Saddam paying the family money in Palestine, Hussein's stipend is designed to "sweeten the deal" of becoming a suicide bomber.

I had seen an old documentary from National Geography (2002-2003)about suicide bombers and the believe that there is indeed a community donated stipend for the suicide bombers' families. Can anyone verify that piece of information?Thanks.Gammadion 23:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] unsourced prediction

(removed from the end of #History):

The acquisition of more military firepower would be unlikely to remove the entrenched social power of the fundamentalist Islamists that encourage suicide bombers as martyrs.

Whose prediction is this? Not some editor's, I hope; Wikipedia is not in the business of predicting the future, nor is it an appropriate place for original theses. Attribution to a reliable source is needed. —Charles P. (Mirv) 19:19, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It sounds funny because it's the result of a long compromise on very small aspects of this article. It should probably be removed though, so I don't object.illWill 19:28, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] western bias

To those who keep reverting my edits, how can a NPOV article supports opinions that targets of suicide bombings are "civilian" and the operations are "terrorist" without showing other arguements that they are not as "civilian" as they are portrayed? Or unbacked israeli allegations, without supporting evidence, that "many" palestinian families support their children become suicide bombers to make money off of them? Or that the bombers are motivated by a desire to win 72 virgins, and not by despair or desire for revenge against the occupiers? Care to explain, oh "neutral" wikipedians?

It's hard to understand how your edits could be seen as neutral when you argue that an infant held in its parent's arms, or senior citizens celebrating Passover, or hundreds of other civilians, many of whom have never served in the army, are not actually "civilians" because Israel is a "militarized society" with a draft. Also, adding all sorts of unsourced claims while claiming to remove unsourced claims is not neutral either. Please try using the Talk: page first, rather than inserting POV and then going to the Talk: page to complain that your POV edits are not accepted. Jayjg ^(talk) 30 June 2005 20:04 (UTC)

I never argued anywhere that so and so are not civilians. You're putting words into my mouth. But even you can't deny that many, or at least some, of the so-called "civilians" are settlers or army reservists, yet they are being portrayed by israel and the west as some sort of modern day saints who never hurt a fly. Also, the only unsourced claims in the article are the pro-israel propaganda disguised as fact. What I did was insert the POV (not the same as unsourced claims) of palestinians to go hand in hand with the israeli/western POV that is dominant in this article. It's not NPOV to portray one side as "murderers" and "terrorists" and "brainwashed killers" while the other side is portrayed as some sort of peaceful angels. For the sake of neutrality, we can either add both POVs, or neither, but not only one.

Being a "settler" does not suddenly turn you into a non-civilian: Or did 10-month old Shalhevet Pass suddenly become a soldier? Norms of international law have established what a civilian is or isn't, regardless of the justifications terrorist groups use for their acts. If you want to add a special section on the claim that Israeli civilians are not really civilians because some of them might have served in the army at some point, you could try writing it, but the ludicrousness of the claim would only undermine your cause. Oh, and it's not just "Israelis and supporters" who claim that suicide bomb belts are terrorist devices, but rather the entire civilized world. Jayjg ^(talk) 30 June 2005 21:15 (UTC)

Ignoring the laughable case of a Jewish Israel fanatic like yourself pretending to care about international law, the law clearly states that those illegally occupying other people's lands are legitimate targets anytime and anywhere in the occupied territory, even if they are not members of an army. Also, those settlers are very well armed terrorist militias who regularly wage pogroms on Palestinian civilians. And which "civilized" world do you mean? The hypocritical and euro-centric US and western world? They fit into the "supporters of israel" category. And yes, being an army reservist means a person is not a civilian. I don't see your precious "civilized" world arguing that members of al Qaeda or Hamas are not "terrorists" because they are "off duty" or not participating in operations. Remember Ahmed Yassin? Or Salman Harthi that the CIA blew up in Yemen with an UAV? They weren't carrying weapons or taking part in any "terrorist" operations either, yet hardly anyone tried to argue they are civilians or illegitimate targets. In fact, even a nominal affiliatoin with such groups seems enough to make a person a target, even if he never touched a gun in his life. Then again, they are neither white nor Jewish, so who cares about them? Right?

First of all, please avoid personal attacks. Second, there is simply no evidence for your claim that "the law clearly states that those illegally occupying other people's lands are legitimate targets anytime and anywhere in the occupied territory, even if they are not members of an army" - rather, the statement is both filled with assumptions and is simply false. Finally, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, especially for your continuing incivility, insults, and strawman arguments. If you feel you can communicate in a more constructive way in the future, let me know; otherwise, I won't bother responding. Jayjg ^(talk) 3 July 2005 02:53 (UTC)

Anonymous editor - whilst I agree that a distinction needs to be made between attacks on settlers in the occupied territories and civilians within pre-1967 Israel, I do not agree that the article will be served by a dispute over the term civilian. For the purposes of this article a civilian has to be defined as an individual who is not on active military duty - otherwise, a large proportion of the population of countries such as Greece, Sweden or Norway could not be described as civilian (they all have many military reservists). A useful distinction may be made by stressing that the settlers are often heavily-armed, and participate in skirmishes with Palestinian factions, but an attack on a restaurant or family gathering is an attack on civilians, no matter the status of the area in which that gathering is located. This article may represent western bias, but there are contributions from many different political viewpoints, and if you want to provide sources to illusrate biased reporting, then they may well be included following debate on this page.illWill 30 June 2005 22:36 (UTC)

If you want to see an example of bias, looking into a mirror would be a good start. If a civilian is anyone who is not on "active military duty" (presumably includes settlers, mercenaries, and collaborators with occupying armies), then tell me, if a member of al qaeda or hamas took a break from "active terrorist duty" for health problems or to attend a wedding or otherwise, would this make him a civilian and not a legitimate target of the "civilized" US/Israeli armies of peace and democracy? And if attacking restaurants and family gatherings are attacks on civilians no matter what, why did the americans attack a restaurant where Saddam allegedly was dining? And why did they bomb several weddings and family gatherings because they thought some "terrorists" were attending them? Then again, of course, those people are all non-white, uncivilized savages, so let's light 'em all up, don't you say?

Anonymous editor, please try to refrain from personal attacks (such as accusations of racism) - there is a reason that this page is continually locked for editing, and attacking other contributors is unlikely to result in any changes to the article. Also, if you think I represent an example of pro-western bias, you might try reading my comments on this talk page. If you wish to discuss the legitimacy of Israeli 'targeted killings', this article is not the place. You could always start an article on them, if you wish.illWill 1 July 2005 23:50 (UTC)

Pointing to someone's racism and ethnocentrism is not a "personal attack", it's a legitimate criticism of someone's behaviour. If you disagree that you're racist and ethnocentric, that's your perception which is obviously different from mine and probably most non-westerners, but don't try to make it as if I called you random 4-letter words.

To begin with, you fail to address the rather large number of Israelis who never serve in the army; but then you follow up with a brazen attempt at a strawman argument. I suppose if you have nothing rational to add, accusing your opponent of racism is a good tactic. By the way, what makes Palestinians "non-white"? Did you know that genetically speaking Jews and Palestinians are extremely closely related? Jayjg ^(talk) 1 July 2005 22:10 (UTC)

Which "Jews" are you talking about? Black falashas of Ethiopia? White Siberian Jews? New York Jews? Tunisian Jews? Persian Jews? Indian Jews? Jews are a diverse people, and it's ridiculous to argue they are "extremely closely related" to Palestinians when they aren't even closely related to themselves?

And presumably, the Arab citizens of Israel (and I suppose any West Bank residents who are passing through on their way to work or something, although I don't know of any such in acutality) who have been killed or maimed by the suicide bomings are not civilians, either, but in some twisted way legitimate military targets of Hamas or Islamic Jihad or whomever as well. Gzuckier 1 July 2005 04:29 (UTC)

Great to see you care so much about Arabs. But I'd like to remind you that it was Sharon and the Jews, not Hamas or PIJ that killed tens of thousands of arab civilians during the last few decades.

The Jews? I thought it was Israelis you were talking about. How revealing. Jayjg ^(talk) 1 July 2005 22:10 (UTC)

When was the last time Israeli Arabs massacred Palestinian, Egyptian, or other Arab civilians and POWs?

So you thought that Wahid Taysir, the soldier convicted of killing Tom Hurndall, was an Israeli Jewish name? Or that Captain R, the Israeli Druze captain reported by his men (all Jews) for putting a full magazine into a 13 year old girl, was an Israeli Jew? I'm with Jayjg, this is a Freudian slip on your part. Gzuckier 5 July 2005 00:02 (UTC)

Actually, the Druze was found innocent by the courts because he was set up and had a media frenzy convict him before the courts examined the evidence and found out that witness testimony was forged.

Guy Montag 6 July 2005 20:12 (UTC)

Not only have Arab citizens of Israel been killed, but also a number of foreign workers and tourists. As for West Bank residents on their way to work, I suspect that the pregnant Tali Hatuel and her 4 young daughters, who were forced off the road and shot at close range, might, in some peoples' minds, just barely qualify as "civilians" as well, even though they were "settlers". Jayjg ^(talk) 1 July 2005 06:42 (UTC)

Most rational people I know of, who love their children, usually try to take their children away from danger and let them grow in safe places. Obviously, Ms. Hatuel cared so much for her children that she deliberately took them to live in an occupied land and a warzone dominated by armies, militias, guerillas, etc..... Makes you wonder about her judgement. Regardless, it's her responsibility to protect her children, and not the responsibility of the Palestinians. She is the one to blame for the tragic death of the innocent children.

What an amazing rationalization. So the Palestinians who forced her car off the road and then shot her and her young daughters at close range bear no responsibility for their deaths? Thanks for providing a good example of the mentality that justifies murders of civilians. Jayjg ^(talk) 1 July 2005 22:04 (UTC)

When you attack and wage aggression on someone else, you should expect retaliation, and you should expect serious consequences for your actions. Violent self-defense against illegal occupiers is a valid and legitimate right. It's in the UN Charter. Feel free to check it, as soon as you pull your head from you know where. Oh, and I'd like to remind you that it was your fellow Israeli Jews that elected Ariel Sharon despite, or perhaps because of, his long and impressive record of massacring unarmed civilians and POWs (Sabra and shatila, Qibya, Sinai, etc......).

Yep, whn you're shooting those settlers, you can't let the two year olds live, they're just as guilty. Gzuckier 5 July 2005 00:06 (UTC)

And since we're on the subject of justifying the massacre of civilians, Mr. Jay, I took the liberty of scanning some of your edits. You do have quite the fascination with justifying every massacre of Palestinian civilians yourself, inserting trap words like the victims were "claimed to" have been civilians, or "alleged by Palestinians" to have been innocent children. Never mind that every single historian, even Jewish, agree that the said incidents were obvious massacres of civilians. Get real, buddy.

Whoever you are, and whatever your views, you must edit within our policies. Some of your edits amount to personal essays and original research. We're here to describe disputes, not engage in them, and this talk page is for discussing the article, not the Arab-Israeli conflict.

The relevant policies you should read are Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Cite sources. Stop making personal attacks, and please sign your posts on talk pages. SlimVirgin ^(talk) July 4, 2005 21:43 (UTC)

Actually, don't bother, I won't be editing here again. This so-called encyclopedia is a farce when it comes to history and politics. Pro-Israeli POV and propaganda is portrayed as facts, while anything mildly supportive of the rights of the oppressed Arabs is immediately censored by a plethora of editors on this site. So much for the NPOV policy. Ziopedia indeed.

Feel free to take your rants to whatever indymedia craphole you crawled out off and come back when you learn to cooperate with others. I am tired of 1 second jihadists coming here to spread "the truth" and then fail, because they can't cooperate with other people. This isn't an ideologically monolithic website you have come too. No one will toe the line to any agenda unless there is discussion, agreement and consensus on the edits. If you cannot even fathom discussion in a professional manner, you do not belong here. This is another Alberuni in the making. Guy Montag 6 July 2005 20:12 (UTC)

Well put!! Gzuckier 7 July 2005 01:35 (UTC)

They are made long before they get here. Jayjg ^(talk) 6 July 2005 20:25 (UTC)

When y'all are quite finished with this productive intellectual struggle, there are four sections on this talk page (two above and two below) that could use input from such well-informed and thoughtful editors. —Charles P. (Mirv) 7 July 2005 04:54 (UTC)

[edit] The manufacture and shipping of these devices. . .

What is this supposed to mean? Does it mean that those who make and transport the belts are targeted for arrest or extrajudicial killing? That it's open season on any building used to manufacture them? Or is it just meant to emphasize that gee, clothing packed with explosives and shrapnel is a Bad Thing? The linked article says nothing about this, except for vague references to crackdowns by the Palestinian Authority. —Charles P. (Mirv) 1 July 2005 06:51 (UTC)

I removed the sentence in question until it can be explained further. —Charles P. (Mirv) 1 July 2005 21:41 (UTC)

[edit] paragraph from #History

However, both conventional (eg. soldiers) and nonconventional (eg. suicide bombers) combatants often commit atrocities and may face military discipline if they are found to be in breach of the laws of war. Suicide bombers are more often associated with attacks on civilian or non-military targets. In recent times, it has been mainly Islamic suicide bombers who have been encouraged in this practice by their commanders.

I removed this paragraph from the ==History== section for several reasons:

• It's entirely out of place between two paragraphs discussing the phenomenon of self-sacrifice in warfare and the effects of modern explosives thereon.
• It says suicide bombers may face military discipline if they are found to be in breach of the laws of war, which is patently ridiculous.
• It rehashes, clumsily, something already well-covered in #Bombings: the usual targets of suicide bombs. It also makes the absurd generalization that it is mainly Islamic bombers who have been encouraged in this practice, when in fact suicide bombers in general prefer easy targets, of which civilians are the easiest. (It's hard to bring explosives close enough to fortified installations, armored vehicles, and soldiers armed with high-powered rifles, if one has to carry them on foot or in an unarmored car.)

—Charles P. (Mirv) 1 July 2005 21:38 (UTC)

[edit] Suicide Bombers and Brainwashing

I am not an expert on suicide bombings by any stretch of the imagination, but I do agree with the person who input the profile of the suicide bomber. I would also like to point out that I feel that suicide bombers are brainwashed. Military organisations are the best brainwashers in the world because how else can they get men and women to go to foreign countries and fight wars that they really do not believe in if they are not brainwashed. I was told once that the Islamic extremists tell their suicide bombers will get all of these lovely things when they get to heaven, which is one of the motivations for them going out and killing themselves along with lots of other people. If suicide bombers get all these great things once they get to heaven then why aren't the leaders of these attacks being suicide bombers so they can get all these great things in heaven? I would really appreciate it if someone more knowledgable then myself can please put in a link between suicide bombing and brainwashing.--TracyRenee 11:24, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I guess the problem with that one is that 'brainwashing' is not really a scientific term, as such - there probably exists a wide spectrum of reasons why people may decide to undertake a suicide bombing. Religious 'brainwashing' is certainly one of them, but there isn't a lot of good, citeable material on it - there aren't a tremendous amount of accounts of unsuccessful suicide bombers giving interviews.illWill 16:54, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I think Brainwashing isn't what most people think it is. In my mind Brainwashing is basically just being taught rationalizations for why your side is always right and the other side is always wrong and evil then being taught that these are intrinsic truths and can't be wrong. By this definition a lot of people are brainwashed, when these dogmatic beliefs are your only education then it is pretty easy to see how someone becomes suicide bombers, look at the posts under western bias and you'll see what I mean.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg 02:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] overview section needs reworking

Ideally it ought to summarize the next five sections in the order that they appear, and should do so in less space. Currently there are seven paragraphs, structured like this:

1. Suicide attacks in general.
2. Some historical examples from the Crusades to the Viet Minh.
3. The Tamil Tigers.
4. The Middle East, mainly focusing on Palestinian bombers.
5. Islamist encouragement of suicide bombers, again mainly focusing on Palestine.
6. Cost-benefit analysis.
7. The military historian's perspective: asymetric warfare, etc.

These paragraphs contain information not found in the fuller sections further on in the article, and vice versa. The organization of the section itself is, to put it mildly, substandard. I think it should be structured like this:

1. Uses, rationales, tactical and strategic considerations
2. History: pre-modern, 20th-century, late 20th-century, and present-day
3. Bomber profile
4. Opinions
5. Terminology

and all the excess or unique information ought to be moved into the sections devoted to the detailed analyses of each point. Are there any comments before I start reworking it? —Charles P. (Mirv) 20:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• I endorse your proposal. As usual, the article grew without any structure. --Noitall 23:34, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

All done. Bets on how long it will stay coherent and grammatical are now open. —Charles P. (Mirv) 01:32, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] outstanding objections?

Are there any outstanding objections, or is it time to remove the POV banner? While there are still problems with the relative space devoted to various issues (there's not nearly enough on Sri Lanka and Iraq, for example), the article has been substantially revised since the tag was added. —Charles P. (Mirv) 16:41, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

On a big picture assessment, it seems perfectly NPOV to me. In fact, on such a controversial issue, I don't know how it could be more NPOV. Sure, more work needs to be done and individual issues could be improved, but overall, certainly should not have a POV tag. --Noitall 16:48, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, I think this article is in pretty good shape considering how contentious the issue is. There's room for improvement (isn't there always?), but we could lose the tag. Also, I noticed it's now one of the top results when you Google for suicide bombing. Good work everybody!illWill 18:25, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Couple of things,

1. "Suicide bombings by Islamist terrorists, mostly in the Al-Aqsa Intifada and the Iraqi insurgency, have been most frequent since 2000." While Majority of Suicide Bombings since the year 2000 have been in Iraq, I'd like the number of Tamil tiger suicide Attacks noted too, if anyone has that figure.
2. Apparent factual inaccuracy - at one point we are told "The term dates back to the 1940s, when it was used in reference to certain German and Japanese battle tactics, but did not gain its present meaning until 1981" - But then later we are told "The first suicide bombing of the modern Israeli-Palestinian conflict, interestingly, was carried out by a Japanese person. In 1972 Tsuyoshi Okudaira, part of the Japanese Red Army, deliberately killed himself and those around him with a grenade in a part of the Lod Airport Massacre" .. is tat because Tsuyoshi Okudaira was not considered a Suicide Bomber at the time, or what ?
3. "Palestinian television has aired a number of music videos and announcements that promote eternal reward for children who seek "shahada" [1], which Palestinian Media Watch has claimed is "Islamic motivation of suicide terrorists"." - why do we need to keep that? We know the PMW is wrong. That is not what the Shahada is, and to keep it stated here is offensive. The point trying to be made, a growing Culture that Promotes Suicide Bombing, is better said with the next two statements, that sentence should be removed.
4. That the majority of Suicide bombers who have Attacked western Targets (excluding Israel, obviously) have come from Nations considered Western Allies, wheter Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the new Iraqi Regime, etc. Should this not be mentioned? Also, the London suicide Bombers were british, which comparitively has oodles of political Frredoms for it's Citizens.
5. "There are reports in the Israeli press about families who turned in their children after learning about a possible suicide bombing attack, fearful their house would be demolished by the Israel Defense Forces" - There are also stories of men who volunteer for Suicide Missions following the Destruction of their house, or houses in their area, should this not also warrant mention here, or somewhere?
6. Since the outbreak of the Al-Aqsa intifada support for hamas has increased greatly, especially in the Gaza Strip. Is this not worth a mention ?
7. "It is understood that the individuals undertaking suicide bombings (or "martyrdom operations") are simply following what they understand to be their Islamic duty, and regard their own lives in this world as less important compared to the next, eternal life. " - that is phrased rather poorly. It implies that they are attempting to become a shahid for the sake of being a Shahid. That is simply not "understood". The group claiming the london attacks blamed the UK's part in the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. The Suicide Bombers in Iraq generally for the most part target percieved collaborators with the occupiers. Palesitinian Suicide Bombers want to liberate palestine from the "Zionists and Crusaders". Further to that point, Richard Pape examined 462 Suicide Bombers from 1980 till 2004 and stated that in 95% of these cases the primary objective was the Removal of percieved Occupiers of land. He wrote a book on this and it's called "Dying to win". Read more about it here.

Thats about it really, and it's not that major. I still think it does not reflect a proper world view, in particular the Suicide Attacks in Sri lanka and Iraq are not dealth with Fully. I'd also like to have something about the Salafi school of Islamic thought and maybe even something on Ibn Taymiya or Qutb, if thats not asking too much. But, the re-working has been particularly good, well done. --Irishpunktom\^talk 18:48, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Excellent. I'll take these one by one:

1. This is true, but yes, it also misses an important part of the picture: until the beginning of the 21st century, the Tamil Tigers were (according to Yoram Schweitzer of the Institute for Counter-Terrorism) "unequivocally the most effective and brutal terrorist organization ever to utilize suicide terrorism"[2]. Figures I've found vary: anything from the 76 currently in the article, which seems to come from Robert Pape, to Rohan Gunaratna's figure of 168 to the CFR's 200[3]. In any case, lots—more than anyone else. They also pioneered the explosive belt.
2. One source doesn't even mention Okudaira killing anyone but himself with the grenade. As I understand it, the attack wasn't planned as a suicide bombing, since there was much gunfire and grenade-throwing involved. I suppose that's why it's not usually considered a suicide bombing, and I'll correct it.
3. Yes, Palestinian Media Watch is crass and ignorant propaganda, far from a reliable source, but there are those who would squawk and squeal if it were removed. Perhaps a better source can be found, or the ways in which Palestinian suicide bombers are encouraged could be expanded on.
4. Yes, definitely. It should be quantified, though; how many suicide bombers have attacked targets in Europe and the Americas (or Europeans and Americans overseas) and how many have been from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc.?
5. Absolutely. Where can some of these reports be found?
6. Should it? Is anyone tying increased support for Hamas with suicide bombings? Did Palestinian Islamic Jihad or the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades gain a similar boost after they started suicide bombing? Remember Hamas carried out its first suicide bombing in 1994 and 21 more before 2000.
7. Yes, all of this should be mentioned. You seem to know something about it, so feel free to edit it in.

I'll fix what I can and, unless there are any major objections remaining, take down the POV banner. —Charles P. (Mirv) 19:48, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

no, sorry, I should have taken that down myself.. I meant to, I just forgot. I'm not going to edit anything in yet, I'm not sure how any of these points would fit in and where.. anyway, if i am going to add anything I'll run it by here first! Well done again! --Irishpunktom\^talk 22:23, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] World View Tag

Does the "world view" tag belong on the front page like that? I thought tags like that could only be posted on the Talk page.

It says "The perspective and/or examples in this article do not represent a world-wide view. Please edit this page to improve its geographical balance" - Which sees to imply it should be on the front page, also I first noticed it on the front page of some other article (Can't remember which now). --Irishpunktom\^talk 08:11, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Template locations: there's not a lot of agreement on where it should go. —Charles P. (Mirv) 13:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I think the world view tag is incorrect. There is as broad a consensus about this as you get. --Noitall 13:48, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

It's more a matter of proper balance, I think, than of overt omissions. As it stands, the section dealing with modern suicide bombings devotes more space to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, September 11, and Richard Reid than it does to all the rest of the world combined—498 words (in the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth paragraphs) to 373 (in all the others), by my count. The ==Range of opinions== section is likewise unbalanced: opinions on and reactions to the bombings in Sri Lanka, Iraq, and Lebanon (for example) are entirely omitted. The article has improved a great deal, but it still has gaping holes. —Charles P. (Mirv) 17:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Admittedly, it would be nice to have. But it seems that if the AP is not writing about it and Wiki usage is low in those areas, it will be difficult to come by. Also, I think it is great to have high standards, but other articles are much less world balanced and don't have the tag. And is the purpose of the tag to show bias or just to recruit editing in certain areas. --Noitall 17:46, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately systemic bias in articles here is mostly a reflection of systemic bias in their sources. This is by no means the only article with a pronounced EPOV, but as the page is both highly controversial and highly visible, I think warning readers about the problem is a good idea. The issue isn't that important, though; I'd prefer to have the warning in the article but I wouldn't complain too loudly about moving it here either. —Charles P. (Mirv) 17:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, thats essentially how I feel about it too, to be honest. It's not there because there is a POV in favour or against one arument or another, it's there because on balance it does not reflect a World View. --Irishpunktom\^talk 22:00, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fact tags

Heraclius, please don't remove fact tags. As the link itself shows, the translation of the verse is disputed; please do not continue to make unsourced assertions. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I didn't remove any tags, it seems you're confusing my edits with those of an anon IP. Either way, I still don't think they should be included as the verse is sourced.Heraclius 21:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

What are the tags there for? What is it exactly you don't believe? --Irishpunktom\^talk 21:52, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Heraclius has made an unsourced claim; I added a tag asking for a citation, and you removed it. This is a violation of policy, Tom. In addition, the translation given was quite poor, matching none of the standard English translations (Pickthal etc.). Jayjg ^(talk) 22:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

A source for what ? the Ayat number is given.. i don't know what it is you want Sourced. --Irishpunktom\^talk 22:21, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Well, instead of just reverting, as you did last time, why don't you actually read what is in the section in question? If you do, you'll see that Heraclius has inserted at the beginning of the section a sentence which makes extremely broad claims without any citation whatsover. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about? --Irishpunktom\^talk 22:35, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

The claim is sourced here:http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Park/6443/Jihad/qanda.html. Control+F vast majority, there should be a few instances of it.Heraclius 22:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

It says "the vast majority of Muslims clearly reject the violent extremism manifest on Sept. 11"; that's a far cry from saying they reject all suicide bombings, and in any event is just one man's opinion. Could you please provide a source for your claim? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I was referring to The overwhelming majority of Muslims view this as a misinterpretation of the Qur'an and Islamic tradition in the paragraph about suicide.Heraclius 23:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Suicide Bombing? the Piece, you appear to want sourced, just says Suicide. Sources that The islamic faith pro-hibits Suicide, though I thought this common knowledge, include [4], [5], [6], [7] now, if you are trying to say that Muslims do not believe in Islam, I'm going to have to ask you to source this. --Irishpunktom\^talk 23:25, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Tom, we were talking about a specific issue on the page, which has been properly cited now. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Should strong Muslim support for suicide bombings be included?

I'm desperately trying to help the article retain a neutral POV from editors with an agenda. But, should it be noted that a recent poll found that double digit support for suicide bombings continues in the Islamic world even as the number of Muslims that see violence as productive dramatically declined?

"Support for Bin Laden, Violence Down Among Muslims, Poll Says

By Robin Wright Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, July 15, 2005; Page A13"

"The one exception is attitudes toward suicide bombings of U.S and Western targets in Iraq, a subject on which Muslims were divided. Roughly half of Muslims in Lebanon, Jordan and Morocco said such attacks are justifiable, while sizable majorities in Turkey, Pakistan and Indonesia disagreed. Yet, support for suicide bombings in Iraq still declined by as much as 20 percent compared with a poll taken last year." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/14/AR2005071401030.html?nav=rss_nation

The information definitely belongs in the article, but be sure to make note of the circumstances.. Suicide attacks (if not specifically suicide bombings) are often a staple of resistance movements worldwide and are often praised. Heroic martyrs for the cause are nothing new, even in the Western world; certain-death delaying actions, hurling yourself on a grenade, ramming other ships, Japanese kamikazes, lots of stuff in that vein. Note that the high support is for the "U.S. and Western targets", not blowing up buses and police stations. I imagine this difference partially accounts for the poll results. TheDeadlyShoe 09:11, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Thats an interesting report. An apparent Arab/Non-Arab Muslim divide. Lebanon, of course, recently saw Hamas drive out Israel with weapons which included the Suicide Bomb, and Jordan of course is a nation mostly made up of Palestinians so these factors may well influence the opinions of those surveyed, but, it is still interesting. --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:44, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Most suicide bombing performed by islamist militants are not justified. According to the Islamic traditions of about jihad non-combatants are not to be attacked. The September 11th attacks and many suicide bombings in Iraq and Israel are aimed at civilians and should be considered a suicide bombing instaed of a martyrdom. I am going to stay neutral reguarding matters of suicide attacks on American or Israeli Troops. User: Talib 72 14:04 15 July, 2006

[edit] HAMAS

Let's go through this bit by bit:

• An assessment of Palestinian suicide bombings is more difficult. -- a weasel phrase, unnecessary unless we suggest that it is somehow or in some cases OK to bomb Israeli civilian buses, discos and cafes.

The statement clearly relates to Suicide Bombing as a tactic, and it's success, or failure, in it's objectives. It is not about wheter it is "ok" or not. --Irishpunktom\^talk

Not clearly at all. Read Will's note below. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 22:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there was a steady and continuous deployment of suicide bombers in 2000 following the collapse of the Camp David II summit between the PLO and Israel. -- Here's the statistics: [8] and a quote: "In the years prior to the Olso accords, Palestinians killed about 30 Israelis annually. In the 15 weeks between the ceremony and the end of the year, there were 14 fatal attacks on Israel, with 21 dead. Despite Arafat's promise, 1994 was the bloodiest year for Israel since 1948; 1995 was not much better; and both were exceeded in 1996, when 81 Israelis were killed - equal to the entire decade of the 1980s. During the 26 months between Oslo and the election of Netanyahu, before the upswing in the settlers' activity, almost 170 Israelis were killed." (Source: Right to Exist: A Moral Defense of Israel's Wars by Yaacov Lozowick, p. 222) A better revision would be:
• In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there was a steady and continuous deployment of suicide bombers since the Oslo Accords [9] and especially during the Al-Aqsa Intifada following the collapse of the Camp David II summit between the PLO and Israel. -- More later. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 10:31, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

- But that would be factually inaccurate, because they have not been "steady and continuous" since Oslo. The vast majority of Suicide Bombings, and attempts of said, have since since the outbreak of the Al Aqsa Intifada in 2000. --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:12, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

In the context of the section (which is about the success of suicide bombing as a tactic), the phrase whould probably say It is more difficult to determine whether Palestinian suicide bombings have proved to be a successful tactic. This leads n to the rest of the section, which pretty much proves that they haven't.

This wording is much better, IMHO. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 22:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Your reword breaks the connection between the beginning of the second intifada and the massive rise in suicide bombing. The use of the phrase 'steady and continuous' implies no change in the frequency of the bombings, which is factually incorrect. Again, the article needs to explain the social phenomena which allow suicide bommbing to happen.

illWill 11:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Fine, then let's tweak the words 'steady and continuous', but I don't comprehend the reason to ignore that this tactic was repeatedly employed well before the 2nd intifada. "the article needs to explain the social phenomena which allow suicide bommbing to happen." -- I'd love to see that but unfortuntely I do not. I suggest we better check with anti-terrorism experts, rather than provide a soapbox for HAMAS leaders or feed our readers wild guesses such as: "At the present time, however, suicide bombings by terrorists are likely to remain the favored method of operation employed by Palestinians..." ←Humus sapiens←ну? 22:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The statistics that you provide from the Israeli government (and Lozowick's book) mostly refer to non-suicide attacks on Israeli settlers - more distinction would be needed to include these quotes. Either way, these are POV insertaions which would need to be supported with more discussion of their context.

illWill 11:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The following partial list proves you wrong. Keep in mind, this was a "peaceful" time when the Israelis kept their commitments and were turning control of one area after another to the Palestinians:

• Apr 13 94 Rahamim Mazgauker, 34, of Hadera; David Moyal, 26 of Ramat Gan, an Egged mechanic; Daga Perda, 44, who immigrated from Ethiopia in 1991; Bilha Butin, 49, of Hadera; and Sgt. Ari Perlmutter, 19, of Ir Ovot in the Arava were killed in a suicide bombing attack on a bus in the central bus station of Hadera. HAMAS claimed responsibility for the attack.
• Oct 19 94 In a suicide bombing attack on the No. 5 bus on Dizengoff Street in Tel-Aviv, 21 Israelis and one Dutch national were killed: Haviv Tishbi, 54, of Tel Aviv; Moshe Gardinger, 83, of Tel Aviv; Pnina Rapaport, 74, of Tel Aviv; Galit Rosen, 23, of Holon; Zippora Ariel, 64, of Tel Aviv; David Lida, 74, of Tel Aviv; Puah Yedgar, 56, of Givatayim; Dalia Ashkenazi, 62, of Tel; Aviv Esther Sharon, 21, of Lod; Ofra Ben-Naim, 33, of Lod; Tamar Karlibach-Sapir, 24, of Moshav Zafaria; Shira Meroz-Kot, 20, of Kibbutz Beit Hashita; Miriam Adaf, 54, of Sderot; Anat Rosen, 21, of Ra'anana; Salah Ovadia, 52, of Holon; Eliahu Wasserman, 66, of Bat Yam; Alexandra Sapirstein, 55, of Holon; Dr. Pierre Atlas, 56, of Kiryat Ono; Ella Volkov, 21, of Safed; Ayelet Langer-Alkobi, 26, of Kibbutz Yiron; Kochava Biton, 59, of Tel Aviv; Reinier Verbiest, 25, of the Netherlands.
• Jul 24 95 Moshe Shkedi, 75, of Ramat Gan; Rahel Tamari, 65, of Tel Aviv; Zviya Cohen, 62, of Tel Aviv; Zahava Oren, 60, of Tel Aviv; Nehama Lubowitz, 61, of Tel Aviv; and Mordechai Tovia, 37, of Tel Aviv were killed in a suicide bomb attack on a bus in Ramat Gan.
• Aug 21 95 Rivka Cohen, 26, of Jerusalem; Hannah Naeh, 56, of Jerusalem; Joan Davenney, 46, of Connecticut; and Police Chief Superintendent Noam Eisenman, 35, of Jerusalem were killed in a suicide bombing of a Jerusalem bus. Yona Peter Malina, 38, severely wounded, remained paralyzed from the neck down and attached to a respirator. He died on May 30, 2005.
• Feb 25 96 In a suicide bombing of bus No. 18 near the Central Bus Station in Jerusalem, 26 were killed (17 civilians and 9 soldiers). The civilians: Daniel Biton, 42; Yitzhak Elbaz, 57, Boris Sharpolinsky, 64; Semion Trakashvili, 60; Yitzhak Yakhnis, 54; Peretz Gantz, 61; Anatoly and Jana Kushnirov, 36 and 37; Masuda Amar, 59; Swietlana Gelezniak, 32; Celine Zaguri, 19 - all of Jerusalem; Navon Shabo, 22, of Bnei Brak; Michael Yerigin, 16, of Kibbutz Maabarot; Matthew Eisenfeld, 25 and Sara Duker, 23, of the United States. Wael Kawasmeh, 23, of East Jerusalem, and Ira Yitzhak Weinstein, 53, of Maaleh Adumim, later died of their wounds. The soldiers: Sgt. Yonatan Barnea, 20; St-Sgt. Gavriel Krauss, 24; St.-Sgt. Gadi Shiloni, 22; Cpl. Moshe Reuven, 19; St.-Sgt. Maj. (res.) Arye Barashi, 39; Cpl. Iliya Nimotin, 19; Cpl. Merav Nahum, 19; Sgt. Sharon Hanuka, 19; Arik Gaby, 16 (student in pre-army boarding school) - all of Jerusalem. HAMAS claimed responsibility for the attack.
• Feb 25 96 Sgt. Hofit Ayyash, 20, of Ashdod was killed in an explosion set off by a suicide bomber at a hitchhiking post oustide Ashkelon. HAMAS claimed responsibility for the attack.
• Mar 3 96 In a suicide bombing of bus No. 18 on Jaffa Road in Jerusalem, 19 were killed (16 civilians and 3 soldiers). The civilians: Maya Birkan, 59; Naima Zargary, 66; Gavriel Shamashvili, 43; Shemtov Sheikh, 63; Anna Shingeloff, 36; Raya Daushvili, 55; George Yonan, 38 - all of Jerusalem; Sarina Angel, 45, of Beit Jalla; Gidi Taspanish, 23, a tourist from Ethiopia; Valerian Krasyon, 44, a tourist from Romania; Dominic Lunca, 29; Daniel Patenka, 33; Marian Grefan, 40; Mirze Gifa, 39; Dimitru Kokarascu, 43 - all Romanian workers. Imar Ambrose, 51, of Romania, died on March 9. The soldiers: Sgt. Yoni Levy, 21, of Jerusalem; Sgt. Haim Amedi, 19, of Jerusalem; Senior NCO Uzi Cohen, 54, border policeman of Jerusalem.
• Mar 4 96 Outside Dizengoff Center in Tel-Aviv, a suicide bomber detonated a 20-kilogram nail bomb, killing 13 (12 civilians and 1 soldier): Bat-Hen Shahak, 15, of Tel Mond; Hadas Dror, 15, of Tel Mond; Kobi Zaharon, 13, of Tel Aviv; Inbar Atiya, 21, of Ramat-Efal; Dan Tversky, 58, of Tel Aviv; Dana Gutman, 14, of Moshav Mishmeret; Yovav Levy, 13, of Tel Aviv; Leah Mizrahi, 60, of Tel Aviv; Tali Gordon, 24, of Givatayim; Rahel Sela, 82, of Tel Aviv; Sylvia Bernstein, 73, of Hod Hasharon; Gail Belkin, 48, of Herzliya; St.-Sgt. Assaf Wachs, 21, of Holon.
• Mar 21 97 Michal Avrahami, 32, Yael Gilad, 32, and Anat Winter-Rosen, 32, were killed when a suicide bomber detonated a bomb on the terrace of a Tel Aviv cafe. 48 people were wounded.
• Jul 30 97 16 people were killed and 178 wounded in two consecutive suicide bombings in the Mahane Yehuda market in Jerusalem: Lev Desyatnik, 60, of Jerusalem; Regina Giber, 76, of Jerusalem; Valentina Kovalenko, 67, of Jerusalem; Shmuel Malka, 44, of Mevaseret Zion; David Nasco, 44, of Mevaseret Zion; Muhi A-din Othman, 33, of Abu Ghosh; Simha Fremd, 92, of Jerusalem; Grisha Paskhovitz, 15, of Jerusalem; Leah Stern, 50, of Jerusalem; Rachel Tejgatrio, 80, of Jerusalem; Liliya Zelezniak, 47, of Jerusalem; Shalom (Golan) Zevulun, 52, of Jerusalem; Mark Rabinowitz, 80, of Jerusalem. Eli Adourian, 49, of Kfar Adumim, died of his wounds on August 11. Ilia Gazrach, 73, of Pisgat Ze'ev, died on August 29. Baruch Ostrovsky, 84, of Jerusalem died on October 3.
• Sep 4 97 Five people were killed and 181 wounded in three suicide bombings on the Ben-Yehuda pedestrian mall in Jerusalem. The victims: Yael Botwin, 14; Sivan Zarka, 14; Smadar Elhanan, 14; Rami Kozashvili, 20; and Eliahu Markowitz, 40 - all of Jerusalem.

Why should we ignore this? ←Humus sapiens←ну? 22:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Nobody is claiming that suicide bombings stopped following the accords, rather the claim is that they have accelerated since the second intifada and the rightward swing of Israeli politics. In this case, you use of the phrase 'steady and continuous' is misleading - as it breaks a suggested correlation between Israeli actions and the rise in suicide bombing. Whether this correlation exists is debatable, but teh answer is not to remove material which is a matter of frequent and public speculation. This article should not merely repeat the widely-disseminated POV of teh Israeli government as if it is the unquestioned truth.illWill 12:20, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Middle class suicide bombers? Misuse of quote

At teh moment, both the introduction and the 'profile of a bomber' sections contain an unrourced assertion that the majority of suicide bombers are middle class and university educated. Currently, this is upported by an unlinked paper by Scott Atran and the reference to a paper by Alberto Albadie. The Albadie paper does not actually mention the social status of the individual, it is concerned with the level of poverty experience by a nation, and so does not support the material in the article.

Furthermore, as Israeli government sources frequently refer to refugee camps and poor towns as the origins of many suicide atacks, is it not reasonable to assume that many of teh bombers are from poor backgrounds?illWill 12:26, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

This is a popular belief. But note that most of the Sep 11, 2001 and July 7, 2005 attackers were well-educated as well. According to [10]: “Poverty and a lack of education are not reliable factors." and "suicide terrorists have no appreciable psychopathology and are at least as educated and economically well off as their surrounding populations."

On the question about motivations, [11] says: "the best way to counter suicide bombing, whether perpetrated by men or women, is to eradicate the promotion campaign for suicide terrorism. If girls are presented with positive examples that do not glorify violence and death, they are more likely to become productive and positive adults instead of seeking to sow destruction and find glory in a martyr’s death." Cheers. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 22:20, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, the first source was very interesting, and well-written, although it represents quite a small sample size (five individuals), so it might need some extra support (preferably from somwhere outside Is/Pal). Is it cited/discussed in the main article? If not, it should be. However, It still doesn't support the two instances in the article that says that suicide bombers are generally middle class. If anything, the source supports the idea that poverty (in this case, of the entire Palestinian society) is a trigger for suicide bombing. This is similar to the conclusions of the Albadie paper, and I'd like to see the Scott Atran one.

I'm not so sure what the relevance of the second source is to this specific question, although it is also quite interesting.illWill 22:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pape's Dying to Win

The most extensive study of suicide bombings while cited is not used in the article and would clarify some points. It would also help in the debate over edits as he shows most suicide bombers are middle class and better educated than average. It might also spark more debates as he shows all suicide bombings since WW2 have involved people who feel their territories are occupied and feel that suicide bombings are a reasonable tactic. A separate psychology study of suicide bombers showed that nearly all had a deceased relative whose death they blamed on their target - Martyrdom : The Psychology, Theology, and Politics of Self-Sacrifice.

---

I've heard of this research but the conclusions seem unsatisfactory IMO. The point about " all suicide bombings since WW2 have involved people who feel their territories are occupied" could apply to many conflicts in which suicide bombing has not been used. What needs to be explained is why SBs have been used in some conflicts and not others. Also, in the case of the London Bombers (7th July 2005) - if they turn out to have been suicide bombers - none of them came from an "occupied territory".

Exile 17:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

If you actually read the book you would see that he does discuss this, offering theories of religious difference to account for why suicide bombing only occurs in some instances of occupation. The research is not perfect but it is extremely notable. Quantitative analysis of suicide bombing has established some interesting facts. Pape extrapolates from these facts to offer a theory that is useful but not completely accurate or perfect. In particular, he does not account for bombings that occurred after the book was published (of course). But he makes the point that suicide bombing occurs when the bombers feel that a democracy is occupying their homeland. This still does not account for the recent London or Egypt attacks but could account for it depending how the notion of "homeland" is conceived by the bombers. But I think the most important and notable conclusion of Pape -- irrespective of whether his model functions predictively in specific instances like London -- is his argument that suicide bombing occurs because people perceive that it is effective. It is a rational choice theory (and therefore has all the flaws of such models) but nevertheless it is very useful because it helps us better understand that suicide bombers may be motivated primarily not by religion, by hatred of "freedom", or ideology, but by simple efficacy. In short, suicide terrorism works. It successfully compels democracies to leave occupied territories. Or at least it is perceived that way by the terrorists.--csloat 18:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

The justification used by the bombers in London was the western occupation of percieved Muslim lands... Which fits Pape's theory (Which did not say "all", but 94% of studied cases) As it stands I can only find extracts and interviews about the book.. does anyone know where I can buy it from?--Irishpunktom\^talk 19:52, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1400063175/qid=1128418279/sr=2-2/ref=sr_2_11_2/202-8179133-0701404

Trailfinder 09:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] new section removed for the nonce

The success of War, Negotiation, Suicide Bombing and other forms of protest can be measured by the number of significant change that have come about as a direct result of their actions.

Tactic	Significant changes
War	Too many to list
Negotiation	Too many to list
Peaceful Protest	Too many to list
Boycotts	Too many to list
Suicide Bombing	Zero

There are several problems with this text:

1. It's original research without a single source cited.
2. It separates "war" and "suicide bombing", though the latter is often part and parcel of the former.
3. It's clumsily POV: Hamas, for example, might dispute the contention that suicide bombings have never achieved significant change.
4. Furthermore, it fails to define "significant change", which is a grievous error when the article describes many significant changes (though perhaps not those intended by the bombers) brought about by suicide bombing.
5. It rehashes something covered, more subtly and thoroughly, in #Range of opinions.

I don't think there's anything worth saving here. —Charles P. (Mirv) 19:35, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree --Irishpunktom\^talk 19:48, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Popular Culture

Should there be a section on Suicide Bombings, or references to said, in Popular Culture. I was humming that Green Day song, Having a Blast from Dookie, and thought maybe it should be featured in here somewhere. --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] IRA Suicide Bombings

When did the IRA ever force persons to become suicide bombers? i'd like to see a citation to a formal source.

PIRA did first use what were referred to as 'proxy' or 'human' bombs in October 1990. They were used on several occasions thereafter.

Wednesday 24 October 1990 'Proxy Bomb' Attacks

The Irish Republican Army (IRA) launched three bomb attacks at British Army check points. The attacks became know as 'proxy bombs' or 'human bombs' because three Catholic men, whom the IRA claimed had worked for the security forces, were tied into cars which had been loaded with explosives and ordered to drive to the check points. At the Coshquin checkpoint near Derry five soldiers and the man who was forced to drive the car were all killed. In a second attack, at Killeen near Newry, a soldier was killed. The third bomb, that had been driven to Omagh, County Tyrone, failed to detonate. [12][13]

Trailfinder 09:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

That wouldn't be a defination of a suicide bomber though. Suicide would imply the bomber who triggers the device is doing so of thier own free will. Hobbes 30/12/05

I agree. The reference in the article states "involuntary suicide bomb", which means nothing. That is like a person being stabbed to death having commited "involuntary suicide". I will remove this. If someone has a good explanation for what "involuntary suicide" is, then post it here. Guardian sickness 22:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bush / Dali lama comments.

"Profile of a bomber A common reaction to a suicide bomber is to assume that he (or rarely she) was motivated by despair, and probably hailed from a poor, neglected segment of society. Both President George W. Bush and the Dalai Lama have made this claim.."

Is there a link to this source where Bush said this? - Hobbes 30/12/05

[edit] Origins

Perhaps there should be a more expanded section on the "first" modern suicide bombings. I've read/heard/watched things about an event that occurred early in the Iran-Iraq War in which a young boy strapped explosives to his body and blew up an Iraqi tank which had been pinning down Iranian troops. It should be easy to gather information on, as he is somewhat of national hero in Iran. I saw a documentary about suicide bombing on the History Channel (could have been the Discovery Channel) where they showed murals of him all over Tehran. They claimed that this was the first 'modern' (that is, after the Islamic Revolution in Iran) suicide bombing. Refugee621 03:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Manga Sewa

This Manga Sewa, whom I'd never heard of till the entry on todays main page, seems to be a suicide bomber, and carries an interesting story. Should we include? --Irishpunktom\^talk 13:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removed edit

User 213.219.238.10 added the following to the ‘Profile of a bomber’ section:

An analysis of British suicide bombers reveals a profile indicating young men who are torn in a cultural conflict between the desire for Western cultural things and the desire to keep their households, including downtrodden women, as Arab as possible. [14]

I removed this because the attached article does not say this about the actual bombers. The relevant section of the City Journal article talks about some generalisations about young muslim men rather than specifically profiling British bombers.

It’s a well written article (although probably controversial) and is worth reading, but I think it is too much of an opinion piece to be cited as support for a statement of fact. --Spondoolicks 10:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I haven't bothered to read the article but note that it's American. I don't know whether the article makes any reference to British Muslims wanting to keep their women as Arab as possible but if it does, or in fact if it makes significant reference to anything Arab this suggests to me whoever authored it knew little about the situation in the UK. The majority of Muslims in the UK are not Arabs, 3 of the 4 suicide bombers for example were Pakistani (one married to an Indian Muslim) and the other one was a Jamaican convert (married to a 'white' convert wife). These people may or may not had a vision for a society they considered more Islamic but I doubt they had gave much thought 'Arabising' their society or their 'downtrodden' women (I suppose this includes the extremely outspoken wife of the Jamaican, the mother-in law and wife involved in charity etc)... Nil Einne 10:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] loaded terms in lead

I removed also known as a "homicide bombing" from the lead. Deliberately-loaded terms like "homicide bombing" and "martyrdom operation" (the latter is slightly more popular, if a Googlefight is any indicator) should be discussed neutrally in the section on terminology, not implicitly endorsed by inclusion in the intro. —Charles P. (Mirv) 22:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I should also note that both those terms currently have separate articles. Does anyone else think they ought to be merged and redirected here? —Charles P. (Mirv) 22:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree Nil Einne 10:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kamikazes and poison

I have commented out the text in Suicide bombing#Profile of a bomber that reads:

Japanese kamikaze pilots were sometimes forced to drink poison before their mission so that they would have no second thoughts about surviving.

This comment reads like one of the many myths about the kamikaze. Can anybody provide a citation for this. Gaius Cornelius 17:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Matrys

I feel the below quote needs rework:

The radical schools of Islam teach that such a "martyrdom operation" may result in them being rewarded, by Allah, with Paradise (Jannah) and rewards such as 72 houri in the afterlife.[19] [20] That is, they are willing to sacrifice their own life in the hope of becoming a Shaheed, a martyr.

To me, the above suggests the primary goals of these people is to become matyrs and therefore more of a selfish action. While this may be an added bonus, my previous reading suggests this is unlikely to be true, most of them are not primarily doing it for themselves or for what it may bring to them (as matyrs) but have more 'noble' aims even if seriously misguided actions Nil Einne 10:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 9/11

At the onset of the article, it explains that, by definition, a suicide bombing involves a person killing themself (and, possibly, others) with a bomb. Then, in the third paragraph (still in the article's intro), it states that 9/11 was the most destructive suicide bombing. Barring the "inside-job" 9/11 conspiracy theories (which I'm not here to discredit), what "bombs" (in the typical sense of the word) were used? They were aircraft. If a car's gas tank explodes, under this logic, that would be an "accidental bomb", right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.165.87.40 (talk • contribs).

interesting point. it depends . . . If the car in question were a Ford Pinto that had just been rear-ended, then one probably wouldn't call it a bomb. If it were a car deliberately rigged to detonate, though. . .

If the 20,000-odd gallons of jet fuel had been delivered on foot or in a truck, would there be any question that it was a bombing? The planes by themselves would have done a fair amount of damage, but the explosions and the subsequent fires were ultimately what brought down the WTC. —Charles P._(Mirv) 05:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

That means that 9/11 was a "suicide attack", and should be dealt with on that article's page. However, right now that page redirects to suicide bombing. It seems to me that that's not the way the redirect should go, since it's the like rectangle redirecting to square (wrong), as opposed to square redirecting to rectangle (right); a suicide bombing is a type of suicide attack - a suicide attack is not a type of suicide bombing. Furthermore, I should point out that the article in other languages is titled "Suicide attack" or "Suicide assassination" or "Suicide murder" - nothing about bombing. That said, I think we should implement a name change (to "Suicide attack"). What do you guys think? Adam Mathias 17:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd go for it, because, when we're dealing with things as long-lasting, and - hopefully - all-encompassing as an encyclopedia, we shouldn't let articles get filled up with stuff clearly not within the definition.

I went ahead and made the request. Adam Mathias 21:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course, this means we'll have to change the article accordingly to reflect the new title. And also, I think we could do a evolutionary psychology / economics of suicide tactics / comparison to other animals (e.g.: bees) take on the phenomenon. Adam Mathias 22:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, ima going to change the wording on suicde bombing to attack, also anyone wanting to bring up the case of japanese suicide bombers in world war 2 should remember that the planes the japanese flew were "bombers" because they carried bombs.--Whywhywhy 05:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

But the title still didn't change. Are you down with that too? Because if the article's about suicide bombings, then there's no reason to mention suicide attacks, and 9/11 certainly merits mention. Adam Mathias 18:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Renamed; you'll have to change the article now. Have fun! —Nightstallion (?) 07:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] News

Some, if not all news outlets, are calling suicide bombers homicide bombers. Martial Law 23:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC) :)

Few do. Actually, it's just one: Fair and balanced FOX News. You got any cites for "most, if not all"? Ewlyahoocom 01:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

FOX News, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, this goes on and on, especially if a "car bomb", etc. went off. I have met a war vet who had taken a hit from a IED, i.e. a homemade bomb. Martial Law 05:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC) :)

What these people ( The "homicide bombers") do, is make up a coat or belt with dynamite attached to it, a means of detonating this, some nails, metallic junk, anything to create shrapnel, then they go to a public area, like a hotel or resteraunt, then "act" normally until a crowd assembles, then set this thing off, not only killing himself/herself, they kill at least 10 or 20 other people, injure 40 or 50 other people. This is public knowledge. Martial Law 05:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC) :)

OK, so let me see if I understand this: a homicide bomber, unlike a regular bomber, wants to kill people; a suicide bomber wants to kill themselves, but is OK if other people also die. So a plain old bomber just likes to blow shit up, whether or not people die? Also, I don't know if the 4 sources you've listed above count as "if not all". Have you considered changing the channel once in a while? Or maybe even reading a newspaper? Ewlyahoocom 05:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

A plain old bomber just lays the device and gets out before it goes off, a suicide bomber, now known as a homicide bomber will make up a suit that is stated above, await people to show up, then when there is "enough" people, he/she then detonates the shrapnel filled device, killing him/her , those nearby, injuring others. Some people have suggested that the annual New Years celebrations held in New York City would make a good target for 20 homicide bombers. That could kill nearly 500 people, injure 1,000, some serverely, spread fear and chaos. Another possible target of this sort is the annual Mardi-Gras celebrations in New Orleans. This is public knowledge. Martial Law 04:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC) :)

But since a plain old bomber wants to kill people, shouldn't you refer to him as a homicide bomber, too? Your New Year's plan is truly ingenious, I doubt that anyone will anticipate it. Ewlyahoocom 05:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Thats no plan. Suggestions like that one has been featured on the news outlets. Martial Law 07:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC) :)

[edit] Suicide mission

I've created Suicide mission as a redirect to this page. However, I'm not sure this is 100% correct. Another use of the term refers to any mission (including those that aren't trying to kill anyone) which involves a high-likelyhood of getting oneself killed e.g. A 17-member Army Reserve platoon...deployed to Iraq is under arrest for refusing a "suicide mission" to deliver fuel... [15]. Ewlyahoocom 17:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "foreign insurgents" in Iraq

Under the heading "1980s to present", the article includes the following line:

After the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, foreign insurgents carried out waves of suicide bombings.

In fact, the US military estimates that only a small fraction of attacks against American forces and against Iraqis have been carried out by "foreign insurgents", believing rather that the attacks are carried out for the most part by Iraqis.

I suggest that the word foreign be taken out of that sentence.

[edit] "A Bipartisan Issue"

I am a wiki user reading all of the discussions here on this topic and I am disgusted in the way this topic has been turned into a Muslims VS Jews and Jews VS Muslims topic. If you are muslim OF COURSE you are going to have a slant towards the "Islamist" view. Similarly If you are Jewish you are going to have a "Zionist" slant. Please leave the propaganda, dogma, slants, biases, racism, prejudices and causes at home. Make your own free online dictionary if you like. Zoinists, Islamists, we know you hate one another but don't subject the rest of the world to your causes and beliefs. As a matter of fact Everyone -SAVE ALL YOUR IZM's AND BIASES FOR YOUR PERSONAL BLOGS!

    -Human

well said. Arniep 19:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tactics Section (WP:CITE)

Almost the whole tactics section is unverified and seems like editor's opinions on the tactics and effects of suicide bombing. While most of it is fairly reasonable, almost none of it is verified. Statements in the section need to be sourced or chopped out. Ashmoo 03:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to merge content from Female suicide bomber

Should have been done long ago. Female suicide bomber does not cover anything that cannot be reasonably covered under this article. Will go ahead and merge if there are no objections. Chancemill 11:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do so. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 17:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Female suicide bomber should be a section, not an article. Doremítzwr 13:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I think... at least for now... because, there is nothign significant about them being female that makes it separately notable. Maybe someday if there are actually articles about the specific influence of female suicide bombers then it can be split... just like we have "women in religion" articles... gren グレン 20:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Should be merged, but the "weasel words" issue needs addressing first. Mtpt 14:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge, as above. -b 13:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Opposed. The use of female suicide bombers presents unique counterterrorism challenges (it is a means to defeat profiling), and is a relatively recent phenomenon; thus, a seperate article is warranted. 24.55.107.138 02:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed.' completely Opposed. The Female Suicide bombers is a differnet article which stands by itself and has great encyclopedic value. Amoruso 13:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)'

Merge. The only unique thing about female suicide bombers is their sex, which may be intended to defeat some profiling measures. As such, it is noteworthy enough to have it's own section in the suicide attack article, but not it's own article. --Djedi 18:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It's important also for different reasons than profiling. The major importance is that women are regarded as worse victims in almost all cultures, which is why people often use the claim of the killing of "women and children" as a sign for a worse atrocity. When one side who claims that the killing of women is more atrocious, and yet uses women as suicide bombers, it's a very important occurance to talk about in depth. Amoruso 20:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Genocide Bombing"

I see no need for this silly propaganda term to be even mentioned. But in any case, I've revised the section to be more skeptical. Whatever the rhetorical claims of groups like Hamas, the occasional murder of a dozen people is less of a threat to the existence of the Jewish people than road accidents or choking on food. In any case "wipe Israel off the map" does not inherently proclaim genocidal intent; Palestine is not currently "on the map" because it has been conquered by Israel but that doesn't mean Israel is committing genocide. Eleland 19:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Ours is not to judge the silly terms people use, ours is just to report on their usage. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genocide bombing came down pretty clearly on the merge side of the issue, though I did trim the text down a bit when I did the merging. Bryan 23:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Its the very propaganda nature of the terms Genocide bombing and Homacide bombing that make them notable.Hypnosadist 13:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Nicholas73 04:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Nicholas73 This term was not coined in 2002, to my knowledge it was used by Germans to describe the practise of area bombing during WWII. I have defintely known of this term from history books for at least a decade.

[edit] New proclamation by Islamic leaders

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3269316,00.html Can someone incorporate this information? 72.83.84.202 01:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Might be vaugely appropriate if we could get a accurate quote from the "Islamic Research Academy in Egypt" but it sound from the reading its the usual propaganda defence (ie its wrong to suicide bomb UNLESS they are "Those using suicide bombing against the enemy, the land robbers, and the occupier of nations, are martyrs,").Hypnosadist 09:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yes, all very appalling

... the business about strapping handicapped people into suicide planes. If it doesn't have a source, though, does it really belong in the article? Or are we just repeating gossip because it's interesting? There are lots of things that have "been observed" by unnamed parties that don't belong in an encyclopedia.

Same deal with the "maybe they didn't realize it was a suicide attack" thing re: the 9/11 bombers -- hotly debated by whom? And exactly how credible were the participants in these debates? BYT 12:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islamikaze

I've added a brief discussion and some citations for the recently deleted term "Islamikaze." Per a discussion with the deleting admin,[16] I've brought the term over here for your discussion. I added the text and citations so that the editors here can get a sense of the term's usage -- it's rare, but a google scholar search will turn up about 40 scholarly papers, mostly either written by Israeli or discussing his work. The term also pops up on the net, and Bat Ye'or uses it frequently in her book Eurabia.

IMHO, it's significantly more notable than "genocide bomber," and is worth noting alongside genocide bomber and homicide bomber as part of the general trend of wrestling with what to call military-oriented suicide bombers. Does anyone object to including the text here and a redirect from Islamikaze? Thanks, TheronJ 15:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 9/11 Political Value?

In the section titled "suicide attacks against civilians without significant political value", it explicity states that "The 'September 11' attacks also had a vast economic and political impact...", which seems a little contradictory to me. Also, saying that the Pentagon and WTC had little "political value" seems a little misinforming to me.

[edit] Range of opinions section not factual?

In the case of the September 11 attacks, the long-term effects remain to be seen, but in the short-to-medium term, the results were profoundly negative for Al-Qaeda as well as for the Taliban Movement.

I am going to edit out 'profoundly'. The reprisal to Sept. 11 could not have been solely because it was a suicide bombing, but rather because it was a general tragic loss of life. Since this section is on opinions regarding the actual effectiveness of suicide bombings, we should be careful not to confuse the politics before and after the action with the action itself. There could be no general statement saying whether or not they are effective since it is so wrapped up in the political climate of the time. --Alex Kozak 10:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)