Visit our website: HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK ---------------------------------------------
Suicide bombing: no warning, and no total
solution
By John Daly
Suicide bombers are the most feared weapons in the arsenal of political activists. Unlike the bombing campaigns of the IRA or ETA, to give two examples, there is no telephone warning; the act itself and its resultant chaos announce the attack. While some attacks are successful against military targets, most are carried out against civilians. As a Hamas training manual notes, it is foolish to hunt the tiger when there are plenty of sheep around.
Since the technique was first perfected in the early 1980s, it has been grimly successful, most recently in the wrenching 11 September attacks in New York and Washington. While Sri Lanka and Palestine generate the most suicide bombings, the attacks against the USA dwarf all others in their planning, complexity and success. Individual suicide bombers present military and security officials with difficult detection and prevention problems for improvised explosive devices. Israel has developed a proactive approach with its ‘targeted killings’ programme, but the long-term viability of such an operation remains to be seen.
Prior to 11 September, the USA had relatively few, albeit violent, encounters with Middle Eastern suicide bombers. On 23 October 1982, a truck with 2,268lb (5,000kg) of explosives detonated after a Hizbullah driver rammed it into the barracks in Beirut, killing 241 US Marines who had been part of a deployment under the ‘Reagan Plan’ to protect the PLO’s withdrawal from the country. Shortly thereafter, suicide bombers attacked the French military compound across the city with an 816lb (1,800kg) bomb, killing 58 personnel.
The bombing of the USS Cole on 12 October 2000 killed 17 sailors and inflicted US$243 million damage on the warship. Investigators strongly suspected the involvement of Usama bin Ladin in the attack. Security postures of American forces in the Middle East were beefed up, but US policy towards Bin Ladin remained to isolate and track him, rather than attempt a direct assault. It is a decision that in hindsight many regret.
For the USA, far worse was to come. Since the Palestinian Intifada began a year ago, fundamentalist rhetoric has increasingly twinned American policy with that of Israel. Many desired to see Israel, ‘the defiler of the two Muslim holy places’, and its armaments supplier humbled. The terrorist attack on the USA on 11 September dwarfs all terrorist attacks before it. As this article is written, the death toll stands at an estimated 5,155 dead, a number certain to rise in the grim days ahead. The statistics for the attacks stun the imagination. The World Trade Center was destroyed and the Pentagon badly damaged when three hijacked aircraft were crashed into them. A fourth aircraft was hijacked from Newark, NJ and crashed 80 miles (129km) west of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. It was suspected that the plane’s target was the presidential retreat of Camp David, Maryland and that a struggle with passengers crashed it. A total of 266 people died in the crashes. Insurance industry experts estimate the final cost of the attacks could range from $5-25 billion.
. . .
Not that the warning signs weren’t there. Abdel-Bari Atwan, editor of London’s al-Quds al-Arabi newspaper, told Reuters that Bin Ladin warned three weeks ago that he would attack American interests in an “unprecedented way”. Jamal Ismail, Abu Dhabi Television’s bureau chief in the Pakistani capital Islamabad, stated that an aide of Usama bin Ladin called him from Afghanistan and stated that Bin Ladin praised the people who carried out the attacks, calling the attacks “a punishment from Allah”.
The attacks destroyed more than buildings and lives; they laid bare the shortcomings of the US intelligence network, from its hardware to its analysts. It also exposed the lack of a viable government policy against terrorism.
. . .
Religious motivation
Suicide attacks serve other purposes besides inflicting damage. First, they generate the maximum amount of publicity for the cause, and second, they force outside intervention. The emergence of 24-hour global news networks such as CNN and the explosive growth of the internet have enabled virtual global awareness.
Ideological support of suicide bombings in the Middle East is not hard to come by. While the Qur’an in Surah an-Nisaa (Chapter: ‘The Women’), verse 29 seems specifically to forbid suicide, the chapter’s 75th verse enjoins that fighting oppression is commendable. This ambiguity extends to the clergy. In 1997, Jerusalem’s Grand Mufti Ekrima Sabri, Imam of the al-Aqsa Mosque and Palestine’s most important religious figure, commented in an interview: “The person who sacrifices his life as a Muslim will know if God accepts it and whether it is for the right reason. God in the end will judge him and whether he did that for a good reason or not. We cannot judge. The measure is whether the person is doing that for his own purposes, or for Islam.” The ideological debate is whether the bombing is in fact a suicide or related to a jihad against oppression.
The Islamic jurist Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi had labelled such attacks “among the greatest forms of holy struggle against oppression.” On 1 August, according to the UK’s Sunday Times, the High Islamic Council in Saudi Arabia issued a fatwa encouraging Palestinian women to become suicide bombers.
Israel has considered many options in dealing with the threat. In August, Israeli deputy public security minister, Gidon Ezra, called for eliminating the relatives of suicide bombers as a deterrent. Radio Monte Carlo on 22 August aired the possible Hamas response to such an Israeli policy in an interview with Sheikh Yassin who said: “This means that he would give the Palestinian resistance men the justification to kill all Israelis who have relatives working in the ranks of the Israeli army.” Ezra also suggested burying suicide bombers with pig skin or blood, defiling the corpse and thereby making the shaheed ineligible for holy martyr status with a promised place in heaven.
Israel’s dilemma — and now America’s
When the Israelis eliminated Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) leader Abu Ali Mustafa on 27 August in a “targeted killing”, response was swift. PFLP central committee member Abu Ali Tallal stated,:“Our riposte will be hard and target American and Israeli interests, wherever they are found. We have no choice but to transform ourselves into human bombs and pursue the Israeli enemy everywhere in the interior and overseas.” On 3 September, the PFLP in retaliation set off four bombs in and around Jerusalem, injuring three people. For its part the Israeli government regards stopping suicide bombers as its highest priority, affecting the survival of Arafat’s authority. On 26 July Foreign Minister Shimon Peres stated: “Two or three suicide bombers can determine the future of the Palestinian Authority.”
The way forward is unclear. While increased security measures can lessen the frequency and impact of potential suicide bombers, they cannot eliminate them completely. Security measures greatly restrict the movements of the protected population, while bombers can disguise themselves to blend in. The Israelis are not the only ones making use of religious imagery. On 4 September a Palestinian suicide bomber disguised as an ultra-orthodox Jew killed himself and injured 13 in Jerusalem.
Such a result requires a concerted effort to win the hearts and minds of the disaffected population in order to drain the ‘water’ in which the suicide bomber ‘swims’, to paraphrase Mao. Ironically, the response that the USA is preparing against Usama bin Ladin may create more fish in the water. Bin Ladin’s actions were designed to provoke an American response. In its haste to build coalition support, especially among moderate Muslim governments, the USA puts many of these governments at risk. Many are corrupt and unpopular with their populace; a brutal campaign against Bin Ladin could well produce civil unrest in countries throughout the region. The grim fact is that the last few years have seen the growth of ‘Crisistan’, from the Balkans to western China.
The Intifada has provided the focal point for unifying Shi’as and Sunnis. The internet and international travel have developed many links between terrorist groups, while Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation provided the perfect training ground for the ‘Afghan Arabs’. The collapse of the USSR has left the region in financial decline, awash with weapons. A number of reports over the last few years have attributed chemical-biological and nuclear weapons to Bin Ladin’s forces. The US desire for vengeance and justice must be tempered with the reality of what might be involved in invading Afghanistan. For Bin Ladin, an invasion could well prove the trigger that causes the downfall of Muslim regimes he hates, such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
By John Daly
Suicide bombers are the most feared weapons in the arsenal of political activists. Unlike the bombing campaigns of the IRA or ETA, to give two examples, there is no telephone warning; the act itself and its resultant chaos announce the attack. While some attacks are successful against military targets, most are carried out against civilians. As a Hamas training manual notes, it is foolish to hunt the tiger when there are plenty of sheep around.
Since the technique was first perfected in the early 1980s, it has been grimly successful, most recently in the wrenching 11 September attacks in New York and Washington. While Sri Lanka and Palestine generate the most suicide bombings, the attacks against the USA dwarf all others in their planning, complexity and success. Individual suicide bombers present military and security officials with difficult detection and prevention problems for improvised explosive devices. Israel has developed a proactive approach with its ‘targeted killings’ programme, but the long-term viability of such an operation remains to be seen.
Prior to 11 September, the USA had relatively few, albeit violent, encounters with Middle Eastern suicide bombers. On 23 October 1982, a truck with 2,268lb (5,000kg) of explosives detonated after a Hizbullah driver rammed it into the barracks in Beirut, killing 241 US Marines who had been part of a deployment under the ‘Reagan Plan’ to protect the PLO’s withdrawal from the country. Shortly thereafter, suicide bombers attacked the French military compound across the city with an 816lb (1,800kg) bomb, killing 58 personnel.
The bombing of the USS Cole on 12 October 2000 killed 17 sailors and inflicted US$243 million damage on the warship. Investigators strongly suspected the involvement of Usama bin Ladin in the attack. Security postures of American forces in the Middle East were beefed up, but US policy towards Bin Ladin remained to isolate and track him, rather than attempt a direct assault. It is a decision that in hindsight many regret.
For the USA, far worse was to come. Since the Palestinian Intifada began a year ago, fundamentalist rhetoric has increasingly twinned American policy with that of Israel. Many desired to see Israel, ‘the defiler of the two Muslim holy places’, and its armaments supplier humbled. The terrorist attack on the USA on 11 September dwarfs all terrorist attacks before it. As this article is written, the death toll stands at an estimated 5,155 dead, a number certain to rise in the grim days ahead. The statistics for the attacks stun the imagination. The World Trade Center was destroyed and the Pentagon badly damaged when three hijacked aircraft were crashed into them. A fourth aircraft was hijacked from Newark, NJ and crashed 80 miles (129km) west of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. It was suspected that the plane’s target was the presidential retreat of Camp David, Maryland and that a struggle with passengers crashed it. A total of 266 people died in the crashes. Insurance industry experts estimate the final cost of the attacks could range from $5-25 billion.
. . .
Not that the warning signs weren’t there. Abdel-Bari Atwan, editor of London’s al-Quds al-Arabi newspaper, told Reuters that Bin Ladin warned three weeks ago that he would attack American interests in an “unprecedented way”. Jamal Ismail, Abu Dhabi Television’s bureau chief in the Pakistani capital Islamabad, stated that an aide of Usama bin Ladin called him from Afghanistan and stated that Bin Ladin praised the people who carried out the attacks, calling the attacks “a punishment from Allah”.
The attacks destroyed more than buildings and lives; they laid bare the shortcomings of the US intelligence network, from its hardware to its analysts. It also exposed the lack of a viable government policy against terrorism.
. . .
Religious motivation
Suicide attacks serve other purposes besides inflicting damage. First, they generate the maximum amount of publicity for the cause, and second, they force outside intervention. The emergence of 24-hour global news networks such as CNN and the explosive growth of the internet have enabled virtual global awareness.
Ideological support of suicide bombings in the Middle East is not hard to come by. While the Qur’an in Surah an-Nisaa (Chapter: ‘The Women’), verse 29 seems specifically to forbid suicide, the chapter’s 75th verse enjoins that fighting oppression is commendable. This ambiguity extends to the clergy. In 1997, Jerusalem’s Grand Mufti Ekrima Sabri, Imam of the al-Aqsa Mosque and Palestine’s most important religious figure, commented in an interview: “The person who sacrifices his life as a Muslim will know if God accepts it and whether it is for the right reason. God in the end will judge him and whether he did that for a good reason or not. We cannot judge. The measure is whether the person is doing that for his own purposes, or for Islam.” The ideological debate is whether the bombing is in fact a suicide or related to a jihad against oppression.
The Islamic jurist Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi had labelled such attacks “among the greatest forms of holy struggle against oppression.” On 1 August, according to the UK’s Sunday Times, the High Islamic Council in Saudi Arabia issued a fatwa encouraging Palestinian women to become suicide bombers.
Israel has considered many options in dealing with the threat. In August, Israeli deputy public security minister, Gidon Ezra, called for eliminating the relatives of suicide bombers as a deterrent. Radio Monte Carlo on 22 August aired the possible Hamas response to such an Israeli policy in an interview with Sheikh Yassin who said: “This means that he would give the Palestinian resistance men the justification to kill all Israelis who have relatives working in the ranks of the Israeli army.” Ezra also suggested burying suicide bombers with pig skin or blood, defiling the corpse and thereby making the shaheed ineligible for holy martyr status with a promised place in heaven.
Israel’s dilemma — and now America’s
When the Israelis eliminated Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) leader Abu Ali Mustafa on 27 August in a “targeted killing”, response was swift. PFLP central committee member Abu Ali Tallal stated,:“Our riposte will be hard and target American and Israeli interests, wherever they are found. We have no choice but to transform ourselves into human bombs and pursue the Israeli enemy everywhere in the interior and overseas.” On 3 September, the PFLP in retaliation set off four bombs in and around Jerusalem, injuring three people. For its part the Israeli government regards stopping suicide bombers as its highest priority, affecting the survival of Arafat’s authority. On 26 July Foreign Minister Shimon Peres stated: “Two or three suicide bombers can determine the future of the Palestinian Authority.”
The way forward is unclear. While increased security measures can lessen the frequency and impact of potential suicide bombers, they cannot eliminate them completely. Security measures greatly restrict the movements of the protected population, while bombers can disguise themselves to blend in. The Israelis are not the only ones making use of religious imagery. On 4 September a Palestinian suicide bomber disguised as an ultra-orthodox Jew killed himself and injured 13 in Jerusalem.
Such a result requires a concerted effort to win the hearts and minds of the disaffected population in order to drain the ‘water’ in which the suicide bomber ‘swims’, to paraphrase Mao. Ironically, the response that the USA is preparing against Usama bin Ladin may create more fish in the water. Bin Ladin’s actions were designed to provoke an American response. In its haste to build coalition support, especially among moderate Muslim governments, the USA puts many of these governments at risk. Many are corrupt and unpopular with their populace; a brutal campaign against Bin Ladin could well produce civil unrest in countries throughout the region. The grim fact is that the last few years have seen the growth of ‘Crisistan’, from the Balkans to western China.
The Intifada has provided the focal point for unifying Shi’as and Sunnis. The internet and international travel have developed many links between terrorist groups, while Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation provided the perfect training ground for the ‘Afghan Arabs’. The collapse of the USSR has left the region in financial decline, awash with weapons. A number of reports over the last few years have attributed chemical-biological and nuclear weapons to Bin Ladin’s forces. The US desire for vengeance and justice must be tempered with the reality of what might be involved in invading Afghanistan. For Bin Ladin, an invasion could well prove the trigger that causes the downfall of Muslim regimes he hates, such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
------------------------------------------------- This Discussion List is the follow-up for the old stopnato @listbot.com that has been shut down
==^================================================================ EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84x2u.a9spWA Or send an email To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This email was sent to: archive@jab.org T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================
