What is Reddit's opinion of Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

One people’s freedom fighters are another people’s terrorists… I highly recommend Robert Pape’s book, “Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism”. Similar methodology of threat assessment can be applied to asymmetric conflicts involving the occupation of a disorganized country/region. I would be curious if the OP had a before/after of the fall of the Soviet Union. Interesting map!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<strong>and this: Understanding Terror Networks</strong>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Saudi Arabia isn't the core issue when it comes to this and I'm not sure why the fuck you based your entire comment on a shit country that I could care less about.

The fact you don't understand blowback makes you an idiot. Try reading what counter terrorism experts, like you know...the guy leading it in the 90's has to say. Try reading the experts that discuss our policies.

But sure, arming people, betraying people, overthrowing democratically elected governments, overthrowing dictators we prop up, arming dictators, giving them WMD's, sanctions that kill over half a million children (than having your Sec. of state say on live t.v that those deaths were "worth it"), bombings and everything else SURELY have nothing to do with it. Surely we shouldn't listen to the words of those themselves that declare war and list the REASONS.

Maybe you're in the wrong sub, because people here aren't inherently Neo-con morons who haven't spent even 1 hour looking to U.S foreign policy in the U.S middle east.

I'll start you out bud:

https://www.amazon.com/Dying-Win-Strategic-Suicide-Terrorism/dp/0812973380

https://www.google.com/#q=michael+scheuer

>You have been racist

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

>you have lied

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is there a multi- nation bombing going on over christian countries? Or placing dictators in western countries after hundreds of years of colonizing them making the Muslim nation rich and leaving the colonized area decades behind? Exactly retard. Think with a level head. Reverse the situation and maybe then your pea-brain with double digit IQ would understand. Damn people are manufactured like idiots by the education system and the media in the west.

>Holy shit, there were two non-religious suicide bombers with a vaguely Christian heritage

Now that you asked for it. Ever heard of Tamil Tigers also known as LTTE. They have done MORE suicide bombing than all Alqaeda bombing combined.

Also, the SriLankan Bhuddist government violating the Geneva convention have murdered everyone of these leaders of LTTE atheist suicide bombing terrorist one by one.

Proof that tamil tiger leaders being atheist:

• Pape, Robert (2006). Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism. Random House.

• "The Rebellion in Sri Lanka: Sparrow Tactics to Guerrilla Warfare (1971–1996)," p. 13.

• Bermana, Eli; David D. Laitin (2008). "Religion, terrorism and public goods: Testing the club model". Journal of Public Economics

Oh snap!

The correlation is between occupation by a democratic nation and suicide bombings:

http://www.amazon.com/Dying-Win-Strategic-Suicide-Terrorism/dp/0812973380/ref=cm_lmf_tit_2