Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 CptJake wrote:

One is celebrating death in an attempt to kill others, one is not.

I might point out that martyrdom is hardly unique to Muslims. Or do you think that dying in the name patriotism and freedom for one's brethren to be only a virtue when it's an American in the box?

Or is it perhaps that the US Public Education system has decayed so far that they no longer tell of brave Nathan Hale who faced his death with but one regret?

 BaronIveagh wrote:
I might point out that martyrdom is hardly unique to Muslims.?

I might point out that motivations differ.

 His Master's Voice wrote:

I might point out that motivations differ.

Enlighten me. Because I don't see it, at least in the case of the Palestinians.

Islam martyrdom is quite often defined less by the cause for which you're dying (as it is often the nebulous concept of faith) and more by the manner of one's death - how many 'enemies' can you take as you go.

Hale died so that others could live free.

Contrast that with a suicide bomber who often dies so that others may die with him.

I just reviewed footage of the SWAT dynamic entrance/hostage rescue at the supermarket in France. I really, really hope that wasn't GIGN, because the initial entry was fething embarrassing on an international scale.

Protip: If your point man makes entry you FOLLOW HIM THROUGH THE fething DOOR. CQB is all about dynamic, high speed violence, the hostages do not have the time for you to peek around the door and pussy foot about, you need to be through the entry, clear of the vortex of fire and engaging targets as quickly as humanly possible, because the faster you are the better chance everyone who isn't a bad guy has of living.

I hope the French officer who made entry and got left with his ass in the wind is handing out some serious lumps to the rest of his stack in the squad bay.

So... is it too soon to swap Ebola on my Dakka bingo with Islamic news?

This whole thing is a tragedy. The religion of Islam needs to be toned down, it's like 14th century christians. Worst part is, people lost their lives during this mess. It has been said before but, violence won't stop until people learn to respect each other. Glad there is a thread discussing this, I just got back in country so this might help me catch up with what all happened.

No. Hell on that. I refuse to respect you and your bronze age bullgak. As a human being, I am obligated to show tolerance for your religion, meaning, I don't intend to prevent you from practicing it. I am not obligated to respect it, any more than I'm obligated to respect a politician, a uniform, or Barney the dinosaur. Respect is not automatically dispensed upon an idea or an institution because a threshold number of persons above X believe or approve of it. Millions of people approve of Rush Limbaugh, do you show respect for that donkey cave? Probably not, I don't. Deists are idiots, but showing deference to them is beyond idiotic, it's harmful to humanity as a whole. If we are ever going to mature as a species, it's time to knock that gak off.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

One is celebrating death in an attempt to kill others, one is not.

I might point out that martyrdom is hardly unique to Muslims. Or do you think that dying in the name patriotism and freedom for one's brethren to be only a virtue when it's an American in the box?

Or is it perhaps that the US Public Education system has decayed so far that they no longer tell of brave Nathan Hale who faced his death with but one regret?

Did Hale commit suicide? I don't remember that. I don't remember too many cases of the founders using suicide tactics to be honest, let alone forcing others to commit suicide. In Iraq, there were cases where the bad guys raped or otherwise soiled females, then used that shame to get them to put on a suicide vest. They did similar to mentally challenged kids. I would bet none of our founders would find that something to praise.

If you cannot see the difference, that is too bad. Our education system clearly failed you.

 Matthew wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Matthew wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Matthew wrote:
The worst thing is that SD, a political party in Sweden, are blaiming muslims for this.

Well, it wasn't committed by Pastafarians now, was it?

Saying that this is Islam's fault is like saying a single murder by a fanatical Christian is Christianitys fault.

Apples and oranges. It is probably better to compare modern Islam to medieval Christianity.

Yeah, but what about all those white murderers? why isn't all that they do Christianitys fault?

Skin colour =/= religion.

The majority of white British people are atheist (indifference).

By the same token, not all Brown/black people are Muslims.

The pastor of my parents church (in England) is ethnically Indian. And a damn good pastor he is too (I say that as an atheist).

There are quite a few white Muslims too. And I'm not talking about people who converted at some point in their life.

Serbia, Croatia etc? Spain? Cyprus?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Serbia, Croatia etc? Spain? Cyprus?

Take your pick. And those aren't the only ones.

 Hordini wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Serbia, Croatia etc? Spain? Cyprus?

Take your pick. And those aren't the only ones.

Lots of white muslim ethnicities in Russia too. The Chechens are the best known because of their bloody terrorist attacks, but the others are very well integrated in Russian society.
I would also like to add that a lot of Arabs, especially in Syria and the surrounding area have very white skin. Just look at Bashar al-Assad and his family for an example

 Hordini wrote:
There are quite a few white Muslims too. And I'm not talking about people who converted at some point in their life.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1343954/100-000-Islam-converts-living-UK-White-women-keen-embrace-Muslim-faith.html

As said, islam is a religion not an ethnicity.

W....T.....F......

Any ethnicity/nationality/minority/majority/citizen/civilian/royalty/elected official can follow the Islamic faith. What idiot open this can of worms?

 Jihadin wrote:
W....T.....F......

Any ethnicity/nationality/minority/majority/citizen/civilian/royalty/elected official can follow the Islamic faith. What idiot open this can of worms?

The 13 year old equating skin color to religion.

 djones520 wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
W....T.....F......

Any ethnicity/nationality/minority/majority/citizen/civilian/royalty/elected official can follow the Islamic faith. What idiot open this can of worms?

The 13 year old equating skin color to religion.

Going to go with "Matthew" being he is the only 13 year old I know. I know Iron Captain a bit older.
Anyone can follow any religion to meet that individual Spiritual Need. Its whatever religion he/she feels that gives them most guidance/structure to their life. That is just touching the tip of the iceberg that sank the Titanic. Any further then this might derail into a religion bash

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
In a related note, Anonymous stated that it will be mining and posting Islamic Terrorists' personal information in response to the CH attacks.

It would be a real...real shame if something bad happened to those terrorists.

Yes it would be bad if something happened to these "terrorists" because Anonymous is not an intelligence agency, and the guys in the masks have zero accountability, and wont care if they reveal the ID of a moslem guy in street x of city y on the grounds that he looked at someone funny. And this rings the dinner bell for any loon to hunt them down. Even if by random happenstance they get the right guys, and equally if/when the name the wrong guys, it weont do any good. Even if we ignore the ourt and out race war it would likely trigger when people start getting lynched because their names are on an internet hit list, your still have problems. Those who act on the info are not exactly going to be looking for reasonable force or proof of guilt. They also wont check the ID of any guy with a beard and robes in the vicinity of where the "terrorist" lives. Mob justice will naturally extend from the named culprit, who is of course automatically guilty, to anyone who tries to get real justice involved (they are trying to stop justice apparently) and his neighbours (because they must have known something) to the guy who trims his beard (because he must also be in on it) and lets not forget his brother in laws second cousin third removed, (because to do a thorough job you need to get them all). Outsourcing justice to a random internet mob is an idea I thought even you would have problem with Nuggz.

Vigilante action is bad enough to solve known problems, it gets truly dodgy when it tries to source said problems, you might as well run a postcode lottery of local people with middle eastern sounding names and publish them as this weeks hit list of bad guys.

There is a historical term for this phenomenon, it's called a 'witch hunt'.

Pol Pot would approve though.

Or, you know, adding random names and addresses into the list "for the lulz".

... or rivals and people grudges are held against..

That happened a lot in Afghanistan. A number of people were fingered as Al Quaeda operatives because they were business rivals of those who fingered them. Several times the Allied forces closed in on queue.
If you can fool a military this way, what will it do to a mob.

Anonymous's idea - unless hammered very rapidly - will result in martial law, civil war or genocide. Pick at least one.

 His Master's Voice wrote:

Hale died so that others could live free.

Contrast that with a suicide bomber who often dies so that others may die with him.

Granted, it depends on the bomber, which is why I was discussing Palestine and that woman in the photo rather than AQ. There's an unfortunate trend around here to lump people together based on tactics rather than motive. A 'political' terrorist can be reasoned with and negotiated with, (which is the only historically successful way to deal with them permanently, btw). A 'revenge' or 'ideology' terrorist cannot, but is the only type CptJake seems familiar with.

 CptJake wrote:

Did Hale commit suicide? I don't remember that.

No, Hale volunteered for a suicide mission that everyone else turned down because it was for questionable gain.

 CptJake wrote:
I don't remember too many cases of the founders using suicide tactics to be honest, let alone forcing others to commit suicide.

At the time it was called a 'forlorn hope' and your job was to soak up bullets for the next wave of troops when assaulting a fortified position and try to establish a foothold. The tactic is also from whence we get the term 'Cannon Fodder', as they would be made up of less valuable troops and fed directly into the guns of the fort, so that they were reloading when the second wave came up. Washington ordered them frequently during the fighting at Yorktown, though he did not have to force anyone, there were plenty of volunteers to be martyred.

Modern suicide tactics wouldn't have been very effective at the time.

The US, in the past, has glorified men who (supposedly) committed suicide to kill large numbers of enemy combatants.



The story at the time was that Colin Kelly rammed his damaged B-17 into the battleship Haruna (or any one of several other Japanese ships). It wasn't true, Kelly's plane exploded in midair after he ordered everyone else to jump. But that didn't stop the US propaganda machine from making him a martyr. The story was quietly swept under the rug when Japan started using kamikaze's against the US.

I'm pretty sure most forlorn hopes were volunteer only, and they had plenty of volunteers because anyone who survived could get bonuses, promotions, and even battlefield commissions. It certainly wasn't because they wanted to be martyred.

 Hordini wrote:
I'm pretty sure most forlorn hopes were volunteer only, and they had plenty of volunteers because anyone who survived could get bonuses, promotions, and even battlefield commissions. It certainly wasn't because they wanted to be martyred.

That was common in European armies. However, and this is IIRC, the Continental Army did not follow that practice. The English and French in particular rewarded forlorn hope survivors. Contrast that with the US troops used at Vicksburg by Sherman as a forlorn hope. While almost thirty years later, they received 80 CMHs (among 150 men), the most ever for a single action, only one person (Pvt. David Day) got promoted (sort of, they made him an orderly) and no one got a raise.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
I'm pretty sure most forlorn hopes were volunteer only, and they had plenty of volunteers because anyone who survived could get bonuses, promotions, and even battlefield commissions. It certainly wasn't because they wanted to be martyred.

That was common in European armies. However, and this is IIRC, the Continental Army did not follow that practice.

That may be, but I still doubt that they would have joined a forlorn hope simply out of a desire to be martyrs.

I've certainly always had the impression that warriors/soldiers voluntarily sacrificing themselves for the sake of a cause or to play a role in a bigger battle has always been universally romanticized. Certainly those that give up their lives rather than surrendering, being captured or allowing the enemy to advance their objective seem to be consistently held up as heroes.

That said the idea of becoming a sort of living weapon, with the goal of attacking through self-destruction as the first and primary means of engagement does seem a fair bit less common. Not so uncommon as to be particular unique to any particular group(s) but far from universal either. I can't really recall any particular cases where america encouraged this, but american military history is hardly my strong suit either.

Chongara wrote:I can't really recall any particular cases where america encouraged this, but american military history is hardly my strong suit either.

See propaganda poster in earlier post.

Encourage it? No. Glorify it, yes.

Hordini wrote:
That may be, but I still doubt that they would have joined a forlorn hope simply out of a desire to be martyrs.

Patriotism can make people every bit as fanatical as religion.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Patriotism can make people every bit as fanatical as religion.

I think the word you're looking for is nationalism.

Forlorn Hope were traditionally prisoners IIRC. They were used as cannon fodder, and any who survived won full pardons.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Forlorn Hope were traditionally prisoners IIRC. They were used as cannon fodder, and any who survived won full pardons.

Varied with the Army in question (Russia was very fond of that method, but tended to leave out the 'pardon' part). The English and French (and, by extension, the US) tended to glorify the men who carried them out. English Forlorn hope survivors, even if not promoted, received special badges to denote that they had done so.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Chongara wrote:I can't really recall any particular cases where america encouraged this, but american military history is hardly my strong suit either.

See propaganda poster in earlier post.

That is not a case of what I'm talking about. In the poster in question, it's not telling the story of someone's goal was to destroy themselves as a means of attack from the outset. It's telling the story of someone who chose to do so when left with no other options. In that case he did not go out as living with weapon with self-destruction as the first and primary means of engagement.

A suicide bomber does go out with self-destruction intended as the first and primary means of engagement. That's why it at least feels different to me than some of the examples you're putting forward. The the suicides bomber's death is both means and end.