Jump to content

Talk:Suicide attack

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BelalSaid (talk | contribs) at 00:43, 9 November 2012 (→‎More Muslim scholars opinions). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Non-Mulsim suicide attackers

..What about non-muslim suicide attacks (Columbine, recent mall & church shootings, etc.)? 71.84.249.178 (talk) 22:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Brian[reply]

see post at bottom --BoogaLouie (talk)

Why was the references to the suicide bombing theory of the ancient testament immediatly removed? wasn't samson the first suicide bomber ever? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lataztaz (talk • contribs) 18:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide bombing, scholar and hadith have used

this page contains fatwa hadith and quran verses that scholars such as Yusuf qardawi have used to justify suicide bombing

http://www.religioscope.com/pdf/martyrdom.pdf

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.108.110.162 (talk) 23:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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).[reply]
Hi. Please sign your posts on talk pages. Also, please be bold in making edits. I'm going to take out some editorializing fluff in the intro in just a moment. Also, can somebody point me to the archived peer review? Something seems to be wrong with that template, since the link is a blank page. Tarheelcoxn 10:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. [1][2]
Trailfinder 09:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

It is nothing like "being stabbed to death having committed "involuntary suicide"". Proxy bombing relies on a person being willing to blow themselves up under the duress. A better comparison would be a person who chooses to throw themselves out of a window rather than face another round of torture. There should be a section on proxy bombing in this article. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Philip.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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... [3]. Ewlyahoocom 17:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This redirection is imho incorrect. A suicide mission can as easily be, for example, a tactical commando action to disrupt enemy logistics, very distinct from an act of terrorism intent on taking lives. Even the term "attack" feels much broader than the phenomena described in the article body, and therefore seems inappropriate. 81.182.216.195 13:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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

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.[reply]

Need admin help to remove vandalism

Hello, I found the following text in section 9 and it does not appear in the "edit page" section so I cannot delete it myself. It is very offensive, please see that it is deleted. Thank you!

The muslims are raising disgusting animals and they should all be caged. The well known saying, "Not all muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are muslim," is very true. Do we have to kill all muslims to take care of this problem? The answer is, yes. This problem has caused us to kill the muslim race so we can take care of this issue.

Looks like it was already removed by the time you posted this comment here on talk, perhaps explaining why you couldn't find it in the source text when you tried editing it. Perhaps you were seeing a leftover cached page when viewing the page without logging in. Anyway, it's gone. Bryan Derksen 23:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide attacks in former Spanish colonies.

Suicide attacks happened (without the use of explosives) long before WW2. During Spain's 400 year occupation of the Philippines, the Muslim Moros of Sulu frequently went amok in markets and penetrated military establishments attacking anyone around them, with machetes strapped to their arms. They would ceremoniously pray, wash and dress themselves prior to the attack. It seems that suicide in the name of God is an old and not uncommon tactic used by Muslims during periods of infidel occupation. 219.88.63.35 05:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ha! fat chance of getting this included because it strengthens the link between muslims and suicide bombing. this whole article is designed to put distance between the very real equation of suicide bomber = muslim.

wikipedia is pro-muslim. very sad its been HIJACKED by pro-muslims --76.173.244.75 (talk) 03:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

USMC aviators at Midway

I understand that the Japanese were inspired to use Kamikaze aircraft attacks from the defense of Midway Island by USMC aviators. On 4 June 1942 USMC Squadron VMF-221 flying a mix of andequated Brewster F2A-3s, augmented by a few more modern F4F-3s (about 26 operational airplanes) defended against much larger numbers of Japanese aircraft, including 36 Zero fighters. Over the course of the battle 42 members of Marine Air Group 22 lost their lives. On 5 June 1942, Captain Richard Fleming, a dive-bomber pilot with VMSB-241, flew an obsolete Vindicator into the IJN cruiser Mikuma's aft turret. He was postmostly awarded the Medal of Honor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rus72 (talk • contribs) 09:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

"Self Martyrdom"

Suicide attacks are "Self Martyrdom" and symptomatic of gross religious vanity. Whether in peace or war this fringe of spiritual vanity plagues people of all faiths. It is soulish blackmail ie an unspiritual act performed inorder to draw attention to any person or group whose main grievance is the total lack of interests shown in them otherwise. Children throw tantrums and "Self Martyrs" throw violent tantrums or sulk profusely. It is this spirit of doom, this soulish sulking that cuts off "Self martyrs" from society at large and drives them into isolation and further loneliness where their own self delusions can fester and be manipulated by fanatics. It's promotion is usually found in those whose views are self centered and whose beliefs are unfounded and lacking in any demonstration or proof of teaching, such as those who profess peace but kill anyone their way and/or those whose teachings are unfounded and whose relationship with higher powers can never be demonstrated to others. AP

Kamikaze attacks and "terrorism"

Why are kamikaze attacks, which took place as an official tactic of the Imperial Japanese government in the context of a legal state of war against exclusively military targets of the enemy, included in the "terrorism" series at wikipedia? Isn't "terrorism" defined as acts of violence against non-military targets by non-state entities? Someone should make some changes.

Mammals are mortal; fish are also mortal; ninjas are mammals, but they're not fish. Likewise: WWII kamikaze attacks were suicide attacks, terrorists use suicide attacks, but WWII kamikaze attacks were not terrorism. What changes would you make? Note that kamikaze is a separate detailed article, and the series box does not appear there. —Charles P._(Mirv) 21:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not all suicide attacks are terrorist (e.g. kamakazes), but today most are, hense the inclusion of this article in the terrorism category. --BoogaLouie 15:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History: what about the Hashishins?

I see that one of the first instances of Islamic suicide attacks is not mentioned.

were they muslim, or living among muslims but practicing another religion? i think the latter... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.50.81 (talk) 06:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

I'm going to try and do a major cleanup of this article --BoogaLouie 15:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC) Shut the hell up booger loo. or whatever yuor name is you suck and are too critical Suicide bombers are stupid and ackmed the dead terrorist is the only muslim I trust —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.172.242.122 (talk) 00:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evolutionary Psychology statement

I reverted the sentence Alternatively, Evolutionary Psychology points out that most suicide bombers are single in a polygynous society, making the prospect of 72 virgins waiting for them in heaven most appealing. I can see where the article is coming from, but that's an amateurish attempt to analyze suicide bombers. The biggest problem is that this explanation doesn't work for most cases of suicide bombings. Sri Lanka is a monogamous and non-Islamic culture, yet the LTTE have carried out more terrorist attacks than any single Islamic militant group. Chechnya is Muslim but monogamous, and in both conflicts women are taking part too. So I don't see that the promise of virgins goes very far towards explaining anything. Dchall1 08:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lanka, Chechnya counters other opinions...but who'z got a reliable source as to an acutal count of the demographic of suicide bombers. that should settle any argument. A Hard count will do more for this debate

07/18/2007

Dependence on media coverage

The article might possibly describe the fact that the success of suicide bombing depends on its coverage by news media. If there were no coverage, there would be little motive for suicide bombing, as it has relatively small effect in a war. Therefore, it works best against Western powers who always report all incidents to their public by means of television, radio, internet, etc. Its optimum use is against a power that has a two–party system. This is because the continual coverage of suicide bombing would tend to weaken the party in power which is conducting the war.Lestrade 16:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]

Excepting the 9/11 attacks, the most heavily suicide-bombed countries are Sri Lanka and Iraq (that's still true when you exclude suicide attacks on foreign forces). Eleland 19:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Issue with the Rationale subsection

In the section concerning the rationale of a bomber, the two notions that suicide bombers are motivated by religion and that suicide attacks are motivated by foreign occupation are written as though the two are mutually exclusive. But in fact, it makes perfect sense that both are true. Foreign occupation provides the enemy, while religion provides the ease of making a personal decision to sacrifice one's own life for the cause.

Ideally, the section should discuss them both in a manner that does not imply that only one of them can be true. Mbarbier 16:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing definition

  • A suicide attack is an attack on a military or civilian target, in which an attacker intends to kill others and knows he or she will most likely die.

This is inconsistent in my mind with the normal definition of suicide, which is intentionally killing oneself. The current definition could class, say, a desperate breakout attempt by a cut-off unit as a "suicide attack", which is bizzare. I suggest:

The intent of a breakout is not necessarily to kill others, but thats just a likely outcome. However the example of troops going over the top of a trench to attack and kill an enemy with a high likelyhood of being gunned down would qualify as a suicide attack, and thats an apropriate term 121.45.233.131 (talk) 06:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A suicide attack is an attack on a military or civilian target, in which the attacker intends to die in the process of killing others.

Of course ultimately we need to know what reliable sources define "suicide attack" as, which we don't seem to right now. But the intent to die is required for suicide, so it should logically be required for suicide attacks, no? Eleland 19:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but I wonder how many attackers are more interested in dying than killing? I mean, if they had to choose between their suicide failing and not being able to kill any of their targets, wouldn't they choose the suicide failing? --BoogaLouie 22:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

non-suicide bombings

what if a bombing is called a suicide bombing and actually was not. how does this change the picture of martyrdom?

the following was taken from US central command website sometime around feb 2007

Driverless, Remote-Controlled Car Bombs 'Guaranteed To Prolong Resistance'

Terrorism: Islam Memo Describes New Remote Control Vehicles Used by Iraqi Resistance

On 1 February, a website posted a description of what it called "the Mujahidin's new technology" as quoted by "an unidentified police source." The posting was about "the new remote-controlled vehicles directed at US and Iraqi forces without suicide drivers, which were tried first in Al-Durah then in Al-Taji districts last week."

The following is a translation of the posting:

"The Iraqi resistance has introduced a new technology in its fight against the American Army and Safawis [Shiites], described by experts as a method guaranteed to prolong the resistance for years to come.

An Islam Memo correspondent in the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, quoted a source in the Iraqi police, which is loyal to the occupation, confirming the information that "the terrorists" have introduced, through their military operations, a new technology of planting explosives in vehicles and exploding them on the American and Iraqi forces. The source, who refused to identify himself, added that the new method has already been implemented, a few days ago, when they controlled vehicles without drivers, for 40 to 50 meters [ 131 to 164 feet], directing them toward a targeted convoy or gathering, without a driver.

The source said that the American forces discovered this technology in two incidents, first in Al-Durah, then in Al-Taji, where they were surprised to see a speeding vehicle that came out of an alley, or the beginning of a road, speeding toward the target without a driver, exploding and causing massive destruction.

Regarding this technology, our correspondent met with professor of "Micatronics" in Baghdad University, engineer "Rafid al-Qaysi", who said that the possibility of possessing this technology requires a specialized engineer who is an expert in remote control equipments and vehicle speeds. Al-Qaysi thought that the resistance is able to acquire such technology, especially with the increasing daily support of Iraqis to the resistance. "Al-Qaysi" added that this technology will not be limited to one [resistance] group without the other, but rather all groups are bound to benefit from it, particularly those groups without suicide brigades such as Al-Qa'ida Organization."

Bias in Introduction

"The motivation of recent attack campaigns is a matter of much controversy, with one scholar (Robert Pape), attributing 95% of attacks in recent times to the same strategic goal: the withdrawal of the occupying forces from a disputed territory. [1]"

Having this individual's academic speculation in the intro is POV, though it would be fine in other areas of the article. This is because factually most suicide attacks in Iraq (which is obviously what Robert Pape is talking about) are targeting other Iraqis, not the U.S. military (occupiers that Pape is talking about).

The above quote is written so that it illustrates a generalized viewpoint and presents it as fact. This viewpoint is that the huge number of suicide bombings targeting feuding religious groups, ethnic groups, civilians, and sects in Iraq's civil war have only one purpose: to force the occupiers (U.S.) to leave the country. In other words, despite all of the asymmetric warfare, 95% of the suicide attacks in Iraq are part of a symmetric effort against the U.S. because the U.S. is still occupying Iraq. This kind of statement is very biased, and very low for Wikipedia standards, this stuff belongs in Criticisms and Controversies and Speculation sections of articles. Why? Because it is has almost no directly correlative logic, which is needed if some sort of conclusion is to be drawn up in any Wikipedia article's introduction. This is made especially apparent by the percentage statistic (95%) that seems to be pulled out of a hat.

That it was not. Pape did a big huge project hiring native readers to go through local newspapers in Lebanon, Sri Lanka, etc. to figure out who the "martyrs" were, what they had to say, etc. --BoogaLouie 21:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not go ahead and say that only the remaining 5% of the fighting is civil war, only 5% of violence in Iraq is Sunni versus Shiite versus Kurd? At Robert Pape's rate, the Iraqi civil war wouldn't qualify as a civil war, far from it. Rather it would qualify as a nearly unified Iraqi defense against U.S. occupiers.

The U.S. military is mainly attacked by IEDs, gunmen, and occasionally suicide bombers. But just pasting a random percentage and quote that a single outside person mentioned is not what you put in the introduction of any article. --Exander 04:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Papes 95% come from attacks from 1980 to early 2004. We could add that or change 95% to majority. --BoogaLouie 20:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to The motivation of recent attack campaigns is a matter of much controversy, with one scholar (Robert Pape), attributing over 90% of attacks prior to the Iraq Civil War to the same strategic goal: the withdrawal of the occupying forces from a disputed territory. --BoogaLouie 21:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major changes

I did some major editting to get rid of the overview section and try to eliminate a lot of repitition. --BoogaLouie 22:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The page was very fragmented in focus; designed by committee and assembled in the dark. Much needed improvement. Binksternet 03:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Mulsim suicide attackers

..What about non-muslim suicide attacks (Columbine, recent mall & church shootings, etc.)? 71.84.249.178 (talk) 22:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Brian[reply]

What about non-political suicide attacks?

In response to the question by "Brian" (reposted from the top), I propose the article have this at the beginning:

This article is about killing of civilians for political and/or military reasons.
For criminal, personal non-political killings of civilians, see Mass murder or List of massacres

Anyone object? ---BoogaLouie (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I object. Suicide can kill non-civilians as well. Suicide as an act of war (kamikaze etc.) targets troops or equipment or supply lines and sources. Binksternet (talk) 17:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. new label:
This article is about suicide attacks for political and/or military reasons.
For criminal, personal, and/or non-political killings ending in suicide, see Mass murder or List of massacres
Now, any other objections? --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a major difference between suicide attacks and attacks ending in suicide--209.181.16.93 (talk) 22:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And what exactly would that MAJOR DIFFERENCE be? 71.166.113.10 (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added the note 12-18-07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by BoogaLouie (talk • contribs) 18:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martyrdom operation

I want to move some part of Alleged Islamic motivation to Martyrdom operation.--Seyyed(t-c) 15:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu Suicide Squads

Can someone please explain to me what is going on here? Also, even if corroborated, per undue weight, some isolated planning cannot be given an exposition of a similar length to forms which entail massive and actual examples. Thx in advance. El_C 10:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't looked into it. I'm acting as a bot reverting edits made by User:Hkelkar. If you don't think its valid for the above reasons, its fine by me. (I'll look into it later. Relata refero (talk) 10:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Had a quick look. Thackeray is a very major figure, by far the most powerful person in India's largest city. These particular comments seem to have got a good deal of play at the time, especially as he made them during his speech for the festival of Dussehra. Couple of follow-ups in RSes, including one a few months ago.
That being said, the current section is far too long, and has too many quotes. Needs drastic trimming. Relata refero (talk) 10:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A passing mention sounds fine to me, and correctly attributed to the eccentric Bal Thackeray rather than "Hindu suicide squad", such a thing has happened by Nair Chaver warriors though this was an honor system and military tactic unique to Nairs and independent of Hinduism.Nambo (talk) 12:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesdale10/2287741949/

That is an interesting picture which _might_ fit well here. In any case, it seems like it would be a worthwhile picture to have on the Commons if not elsehwere. gren グレン 11:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Boomshanka (talk) 05:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Human-sacrifice" attack? After all, in religion, victim once meant an animal sacrifice or human sacrifice, sacrificed to a god. That of course begs the question, which god? Pawyilee (talk) 14:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, what about Zombie, a la World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War by Max Brooks? Pawyilee (talk) 10:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Some have cited Samson's destruction of a temple

"Some have cited Samson's destruction of a Philistine temple (as recounted in the Book of Judges) as an ancient example of mass murder-suicide.[1] But it cannot qualify as such because Samson was directly dependent on God for the use of his enormous strength, as his temporary loss of it a short time earlier shows.)"

I intend to remove the second sentence above, as synthetic and to change "some" to "Boris Johnson" -- or to remove both sentences in their entirety. Comments? User:Pedant (talk) 06:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the 2nd sentence doesn't fit - while i'd be fine with deleting both i think changing the name is reasonable. Boomshanka (talk) 05:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I took it out of the lead and put it in history. It doesn't belong in the lead even if it belonged in the story at all, which it may not. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

suicide attacks were against the World Trade Center

"The most infamous suicide attacks were against the World Trade Center"

Is there a reference that states that these were attacks upon the World Trade Center ? Because the 'other article' frames them as attacks upon the United States. What is the right choice, what reference says what? User:Pedant (talk) 06:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Al Qaeda

The passage stating Al Qaeda as being a Palestinian organisation is flat out wrong. Osama bin Laden did cite the continuing occupation of Palestine as a reason for the fatwa against America, there is also a number of Palestinians that have been linked to Al Qaeda. However, Al Qaeda is committed to the establishment of a Universal Caliphate, making it fundamentally opposite to the notion of a Palestinian state. Seeing as it is controversial to label Al Qaeda as a 'Islamist' or 'Jihadist' organisation I will delete Al Qaeda from the passage. Any problems? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.49.138 (talk) 21:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Scholars on Martyrdom

I want to remove the part of Islamic scholars speaking on Martyrdom in the context of suicide bombings. This is because according to Sunni scholars, martyrdom is a great cause in the sight of God, but 'suicide bombings' do not qualify by most as 'martyrdom'. However, the text gives the impression as if there's no difference between martydom and suicide bombing. In fact, in the context in which it appears, it seems to suggest that "suicide bombing is rejected by some, but others accepted martyrdom (i.e. suicide bombings) and here're some quotes." Omer (talk) 06:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this if it hasn't been done. In short words, martyrdom is dying for a religious cause, - including being killed in the battlefield - and suicide bombing only applies to, well, suicide bombing. --Hamster X 12:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Refocusing this article on suicide terrorism

This article is being defined too broadly. The vast majority of the material concerns suicide terrorism. There are scattered reference to the Kamikaze, but the bulk of the text refers to Islamic terrorism and/or suicide bombings in the modern world.

The Kamikaze and a number of minor historical examples should not be allowed to dilute the focus of the page, especially as this page recieves redirects from searches on 'suicide bombing' and 'suicide terrorism'. This is the wikipedia page for suicide terrorism in all but name.

There is a very well constructed and referenced page on the Kamikaze. Suicide terrorism and the Kamikaze have different roots and different social and historical influences. They deserve seperate pages, and forcing them together in this page is mixing categories.

I am going to start to change the focus of the article to suicide terrorism. This is a major change, but it reflects the actual content in the article. Suicide terrorism covers all of the types listed on the article page except the Kamikaze, which I have boxed into its own section on the page.

Sjw-2006 (talk) 14:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't do it. If you want that kind of focus, make a new page entitled Suicide terrorism, but if you start taking out descriptions and analysis of suicide attacks that you don't think are terrorism, you make a lie of the title of this article. This article is not solely about terrorism, it's about the general subject. Binksternet (talk) 15:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bulk of the content should stay, but the Kamikaze stuff should be boxed off. It is an outlier that is skewing the page, the exception in pages of other similar examples. When that happens, then it is logical to make the outlier a different category. The dedicated Kamikaze page is more rigorous, academic and better referenced than the small amount of material on it on this page.

Kamikase attacks are a prime example of a suicide bombing. Don't make this article dishonest by removing that stuff. 121.45.233.131 (talk) 06:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide attack as a title is also problematic- it is not usually a category independent of terrorism. One of the changes I added was a para on the complexities of defining and working with the term terrorism. 90% + of the content is about suicide terrorism, and calling it 'suicide attack' does not change that. 86.161.123.99 (talk) 15:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, don't make a lie of this article's title. If you want to have an article that focuses on the terrorism aspect, bring the information that is here to the Suicide terrorism page, currently a redirect. This page here could serve as a quick information page which points the reader to lengthier and more detailed articles about Kamikaze and terrorist uses of suicide attack. Binksternet (talk) 16:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russian suicide dogs

Do the russian suicide dogs from ww2 count in this ? The soviet forces tied an anti-tank mines to a small dogs and trained them to run under a tanks to look for a food.But as they ran under a tanks the stick connected to a bomb detonated thus killing a dog with the tank.This tactics was a failure because many dogs ran under a soviet tanks instead of german ones.Partly because they were trained on russian tank models and so the dogs found them to be more familiar than the german ones. 

7.may 2009 13:25

You know what this article needs.

A picture of Achmed the dead suicide bomber. AJUK Talk!!

Reading

The article "Our Suicide Bombers: Thoughts on Western Jihad" presents some interesting historical examples (USS Intrepid in Tripoli 1804, Doolittle raid in WWII, Spartans at Thermopylae, Sicarians in Judea in AD 1) that could be included in this article for completeness and balance if any of the editors of this Wikipedia article are interested. (I'm just dropping by after having read that article and finding it interesting.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.231.199 (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide bombing tactic innovated by MEK

In his book Shia Revival, Vali Nasr claims that the first occurrence of suicide bombing happened in Iran, shortly after the Iranian revolution. He explains that the Marxist group MEK (Mujahideen-e Khalq) used suicide bombing to kill 70 Iranian Islamic revolutionary leaders. (Excerpt: On 28 June 1981, bombs were detonated at the headquarters of the since-dissolved Islamic Republic Party. Around 70 high-ranking officials, including Chief Justice Mohammad Beheshti (who was the second most powerful figure in the revolution after Ayatollah Khomeini at the time), cabinet members, and elected members of parliament, were killed.) Nasr claims that this was the first use of suicide bombing in the ME that would be emulated for years to come. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.104.208 (talk) 07:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Hafte tir bombing article on this seems to think that the bomber was never found, and there is no mention of it being a suicide attack in its sources. Also, Mohammed Hossein Fahmideh's suicide attack seems to be earlier, although it was "in combat", rather than terrorism/assassination.Hohum (talk) 13:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide attack Presentation

An analysis of suicide bombers. Presentation on the suicide attacks that occur in various parts of the world by different motivations.. Document in English. Suicide attack Presentation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.12.155 (talk) 13:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What aren't Columbine HS M and other mass murder/suicide events included

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.113.10 (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide reliable sources that characterise them as suicide attacks? Hohum (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-semitism?

Why isn't anti-semitism or structural anti-semitsm mentioned here? Check this: http://libcom.org/library/anti-semitism-national-socialism-moishe-postone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.158.199.3 (talk) 14:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fidayyen Redirect

This discussion is not about this article, but i cant find a better place. the title Fidayyen redirects here, the redirect should not be brought here, this is a -possibly intended- misleading generalisation, the term is used in the Palestinian context (where the modern Arabic phrase/term originated) to mean guerrillas, or "freedom fighters" as some like to call them, the term literally means "sacrifice", in the sense of the word "sacrifice" that is used in contexts like "jesus sacrifice on the cross" - and im not associating - but would not mean suicide attack, unless every guerrilla attack is a suicide attack! which i claim to be incorrect - and possibly intended . anyhow, im suggesting changing the redirect to Guerillas or leave it pointing to an non-existing article since adding to this one would basically mean by definition adding contradictoriness sentences, or even let it point to terrorism! anything would be more accurate and less misleading. --213.6.13.202 (talk) 22:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response section, reprisals may be motivated by broader agenda

The Response section draws some questionable conclusions about the nature and motivation of reprisals against suicide attacks. The most obvious example (but surely not the only one) is the following:

The Separation barrier under construction seem to be part of the Israeli government's efforts to stop suicide bombers from entering Israel proper.

This reflects a perspective promulgated by the barrier's supporters, but neglects details of the project which belie motivations besides, and indeed harmful to, security. The barrier is correctly labeled as a separation measure, but does not in most cases separate Israelis from Palestinians; instead, it winds through and between Palestinian communities, largely along the effective boundaries formed by Israeli settlements within the West Bank and in and around East Jerusalem. It leaves many Palestinians on Israel's side of the barrier, making claims that security is its purpose spurious. Instead, it can be viewed as an instance of the use of security concerns as a backdoor to enact policies coming from a separate agenda (in the case of the barrier, the agenda being the effective annexation of settlements).

Another example:

Sharon's government has imposed restrictions on the Palestinian community, making commerce, travel, school, and other aspects of life difficult for the Palestinians, with the average Palestinian suffering due to the choices of the suicide bombers.

It can be said that such attacks have been used to justify increasingly harsh tactics in the West Bank (as well as Gaza; most famously, the imposition of siege and the 2008 invasion), but again the security motivation for these tactics is not obvious. The imposed restriction of movement and economic isolation are not imposed purely on matters relevant to security (with many checkpoints within the West Bank rather than on its border; many Israeli-only roads separating communities within the West Bank; many banned imports and exports not having any relation to the ability of Palestinians to engage in further attacks). With that in mind, the motivation of such tactics is clearly founded on broader motivations than to prevent attacks, and so it is obvious that the tactics are not employed (solely) "due to the choices of the suicide bombers".

I don't frequently edit articles on Wikipedia, so I'm not sure how best to contribute to improving this section. The problems described (including those discussed above) go further than requiring citations; the topics themselves certainly belong in the Response section, as the tactics discussed are clearly used in response, but the framing of much of the section seems particularly slanted toward taking for granted that claimed motivations are genuine and not part of broader motivations, particularly with the use of weasel words like "seem"—a citation here would only need to reflect some person supposing that it's true. I wouldn't want to overstep so I hope someone more comfortable editing here can give this section some attention.

174.24.184.164 (talk) 06:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History

The ancient background of suicide attacks. [4]Lihaas (talk) 00:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Profile of attackers: Muslim religious motivation

  • this section is in need of some serious editing, it does not come close to meeting wikipedia standards due to POV, RS, UNDUE issues. Multiple controversial statements are made without ANY citations and sources are used that include blogs. Further, statements supposedly supported by a given citation, including the blog, are not even supported by the citation. To list my complaints (sorry, but they are quite numerous):

1) The quote by Irshad Manji has no citation. Seems someone likely found this quote somewhere, and I don't doubt that the leader of Islamic jihad may feel this way, but really, if you're going to quote someone, cite it or it should be deleted.

2)I quote "Another tabulation found a massive[quantify] increase in suicide bombings." The term massive is not objective and tends to be sensational. Going to the source that was actually provided, the increase is a ~4.5 fold.

3)The statement "Recent research on the rationale of suicide bombing as an effective technique to kill enemies has highlighted the importance of the religion of Islam as a driving force." First, the citations listed here (including John Esposito's work given to support this statement) and additional ones given later including 51 and 52 and 54 (e.g., "Sex and the suicide bomber") all refute this statement and make the role of religion vs. political/social factors (or the combination thereof) quite debatable. Hence a statement saying that recent research highlights the importance of the islamic religion as a driving force is inappropriate due to UNDUE. Both religion and social/political motivations (both supported by recent research) are motivating factors and should be introduced together without giving clear primacy to one or the other as the literature does not support the view that religion is a greater motivator.

4) The statements by the CIFA are without citation, and should be removed until someone can produce those.

5) surah 9 is most commonly referred to as Repentance or also Dispensation. The ultimatum is the less common name.

6) The statement "Historically, as long as a Muslim died while attempting to advance the cause of Islam, including by warfare and killing, it was not considered suicide, but a glorious act worthy of paradise.[citation needed]" is desperately in need of a citation and will be removed until this is provided. And I'd love to see the citation provided because it will need to be a credible source speaking about mainstream Islam to not falter on the UNDUE criteria. I don't think such a source exists because this statement is not consistent with Islamic theology in general where the "ends never justify the means" in contradistinction to the statement quoted above. Please see my quote of Bernard Lewis, renowned expert of Islamic Studies, under issue 9 below to see why such a quote from a RS is unlikely to be found.

7) The statement "The tantalizing prize of paradise for being killed supply sufficient Quranic justification for modern Muslim suicide attackers, especially those who are dissatisfied with their current lives." Has the author read their reference [54] http://www.salon.com/sex/feature/2001/11/07/islam/index.html ?? If so, they would realize the author of that article is clearly positing that social and political forces are the primary determinants of terrorism. To quote from the salon article, "In reality, political -- not sexual -- frustration constitutes the most important factor in motivating young men, or women, to engage in suicidal violence." And the article continues in that vein to its conclusion, "If prosperity and hope prevails in the Middle East, even the most charismatic warrior-preachers will not be able to find willing recruits." Hence, its very hard to support the statement that the prize of heaven is enough justification for modern muslim suicide attackers. Again, the author appears to be pushing a particular POV rather than citing and reviewing the actual literature on the topic.

8) The following statement is also inaccurate, "As recently as 2010 Muhammad Badi, head of the Muslim Brotherhood, world's largest Muslim group called for a global Muslim jihad against the West, openly calling for all forms of violence including suicide attacks, saying "The improvement and change that the [Muslim] nation seeks can only be attained through jihad and sacrifice and by raising a jihadi generation that pursues death just as the enemies pursue life."[55] First, the source of this statement is a blog, not an RS by wikipedia standards. Second, the source doesn't say anything about "all forms of violence including suicide attacks". If you follow it to its next source, which is MEMRI (a source of english translations of arabic news articles, etc that has been questioned for its objectivity and mistranslations including by CNN translators and by a journalist at the guardian, hence it also may not meet criteria as a RS) the MEMRI article doesn't say this either. Most of it is about opposing the "Zionist-American" alliance and regards the issue of Palestine. The author does speak about raising a jihadi generation but terrorism and suicide attacks are never mentioned, and the only conflicts mentioned in the MEMRI translations are Palestine in one piece and a passing mention of, "[Today] our brothers in faith cry out to us from all the places [where they are] oppressed. We see them in Palestine, Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. The enemies have pounced upon them, and their friends have delivered them into the hands [of their enemies]. Let us be as the [fighters] of Badr, and show Allah our virtue by coming to their aid and rescue." Notably, the fighters of Badr were an actual muslim army (not terrorists) who fought a pagan army, and this speech was given on the anniversary of the battle.

Such sensation statements not supported by citations (or with false citations provided) clearly push a biased POV.

9)The statement "Despite this, some still cling to notions that Islam doesn't permit suicide attacks because they involve suicide" is not objective. This very article presents multiple references that posit that this is the majority mainstream muslim view. Further, Bernard lewis in his books "The crisis of Islam: holy war and unholy terror" and Islam: the religion and the people states, "The emergence of the now widespread terrorism practice of suicide bombing is a development of the 20th century. It has no antecedents in Islamic history, and no justification in terms of Islamic theology, law, or tradition. It is a pity that those who practice this form of terrorism are not better acquainted with their own religion, and with the culture that grew up under the auspices of that religion." Bernard Lewis and Buntzie Ellis Churchill, Islam: The Religion and the People, Wharton School Publishing, 2008, p. 73 (Kitkat21 (talk) 06:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Sources of explosives?

The article could use a section on where they get their explosives, and discussion of the feasibility (or lack thereof) of drying up those sources. -- 77.7.129.249 (talk) 12:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definition section. Of what?

What is the purpose of the section headed "Definition"? To define? If so, what is it supposed to be defining? The first line of this section is "Suicide terrorism is a problematic term to define.". Well, that may be true, but this is an article about "Suicide attacks", so at least define the subject of the article, rather than something else. Suicide attacks are not necessarily terroristic in nature, as the article makes clear, so why on earth would anyone want to narrow the term to be defined? Defining the correct phrase, "Suicide attack", would entail a total rewriting of the section, IMO, as the current definition excludes many "suicide attacks". The current definition is wrong, because it is defining the wrong phrase.--Theresonator (talk) 09:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I knew how to delete this section, I would, but I don't want to mess the page up. But I'll have a go at deleting it (if I am allowed to) if nobody has responded in a few days. --Theresonator (talk) 22:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article Quality

  • this article is very poorly organized, very susceptible to bias and less that ideal references. It is truly in need of a major remake (not just a few minor edits). However, I can't say I'm volunteering for the job. As for the anonymous editors who attempt to bias the article by making changes to insinuate that mainstream orthodox islam condones suicide attacks, I'm afraid you're going to need to find a RS for that. No less of an orientalist than Bernard Lewis has written that orthodox islam does not permit such acts and that there have been no antecedents to such actions until the 20th and 21st centuries. Kitkat21 (talk) 00:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proxy suicide bombers

Not aware of too many of these, except those carried out by the IRA in 1990. Is it more widespread? Fergananim (talk) 21:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim religious motivation

  • I am planning to edit this section to reorganize it and add a primer that puts suicide attacks into context of the general rules of war in Islam. Since suicide attacks are an act of open hostility they are governed by the rules of war in Islam. The differing views of different muslims all hinge on how they interpret the rules of war. I think this will make the section read more smoothly and provide a rational organization, which this section (and other parts of the article) lack.Kitkat21 (talk) 10:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Attack - mission

The term suicide mission is used several times in the article as if there was no destinction between mission and attack.

  • If there is no destinction: please merge articles
  • If there is: please define.

Soerfm (talk) 13:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a distinction. The suicide mission article talks about the term as used in a more general sense by people who think there's a good chance they might die, but don't actually intend to kill themselves. Anyway, that article looks a lot like synthesis, so merging it here wouldn't be appropriate. DoctorKubla (talk) 16:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese kamikaze --- crew size for kaiten (suicide torpedo) attacks?

The existing kaiten article says that although two-man crews were sometimes used in training, the final suicide run always used a one-man crew. The kamikaze section of this article, however, says that two-man crews were used in kaiten attacks, and (implausibly) that the two crew members first embraced and then shot each other in the head. This would seem to require very good synchronization, not to mention being excessively wasteful of human life. Does anyone know the real story here?CharlesHBennett (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More Muslim scholars opinions

I know 4 more very famous Sunni scholars who spoke out against suicide attacks and considered them forbidden. They are Al-Albani, Ibn Baz, Ibn Uthaimeen, and Saleh Al-Fawzan. But the problem is that their fatwas are either in Arabic text or Arabic audio. Can I use them?--BelalSaid (talk) 00:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Pape, Dying to Win (2005)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Suicide_attack&oldid=522094559"