What you are trying to say is that for most (every?) suicide action taken by Muslims, that there is an occupation factor?

To me, it sounds like that you are looking at occupation situations, you are seeing suicide actions and to you - thusly - this MUST mean that the two are connected.

What's the reasoning then between two Muslim sects? Is the existence of the Shia and occupying force to the Sunni or the other way? In Pakistan, are the Christians or other minority groups that have been attacked in this manner trying to occupy Pakistan?

Or, are you saying that because the first instances of suicide actions like this were borne out of occupation that any suicide action now is connected?

Nonsense.

Suicide actions are cheap and easy ways to be destructive. That's why they do it. It's not the specific situation - it's an act that is relatively easy and has lots of effect.

Firstly, let me admit that I have not read the entire study and am basing my comments purely on this article.

Having said that, I find the analysis and the evidence provided to support the hypothesis to be too shallow and one-sided. It seems Prof. Pape has gone after data that supports his claim rather than basing a conclusion based on the data in its entirety. Even a non-researcher like me can come up with some glaring omissions:

- The entire era of colonization was one of occupation of non-Christian territories (e.g. predominantly Hindu India, non-Christian Africa etc.) by Christian Europeans. However, there are hardly any examples of suicide bombings in these places. For argument sake, even if we say that this was far too long back, let us not forget that may African countries gained independence in the 60s, 70s and even 80s and 90s and apartheid was eliminated only in 1994.
But did the Africans respond by blowing themselves and their occupiers to smithereens? No, in fact in most cases they adopted the non-violent approach that was so effectively used by the likes of Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela

- Switch back to the present day and the occupation (as claimed by Tibetans)of Buddhist Tibet by Han China is another example where we do not see suicide bombings or any significant violence in general.

- There are many more examples of occupations until recent times like East Timor and Macau by Portugal (full occupation up to mid 70s, after which the Portugese started giving some concessions/ autonomy)

- As regards US sending/ basing troops for military/ political reasons, these have not been restriced to only Islamic countries but have also taken place in Panama, Guatemala, El Salvador, Vietnam, East Timor and many other territories. However, non of these have started a campaign of killing innocent people around the world to avenge the injustice against them.

- Further, as one of the commentators has questioned above, the occupation theory does not explain the spate of suicide bombings against fellow Muslims and minorities like the Ahmadiyyas and Sikhs in Pakistan (who by the fact of being a minority, are not and cannot occupy entire Pakistan)

To me, Prof. Pape's theory is just one of the excuses used by the apologists of Islam to justify the killing and maiming of innocents that goes under the name of Islam. Rather than turning it on its head, one needs to ask the blunt question- Why are almost all the suicide attacks around the world by self-declared followers of Islam?

Making correlation cause can make anything you care to be simple. Did you bother to distinguish larger numbers of closer, less defended targets from "occupation"? Or is that even possible?

Consider a possibly related, but nevertheless independent to occupation variable - the rise of an ideology that celebrates suicide bombing as a laudable choice for adult, competent Muslims, and excuses the use of children, mentally incompetent adults, and other coerced persons as suicide bombers. As others pointed out above, this ideology has taken a greater toll on Muslims and local religious minorities than on occupiers (though unless I missed something you haven't actually offered a definition of "occupier" beyond "U.S.")

I'm familiar with the idea that occupation of Muslim countries has (very belatedly) created an inevitable, intractable culture of humiliation-driven rage and violence that can only be reduced by retreat, but what would successful retreat entail? The physical removal of all Westerners, and non-Muslim foreigners, and religious minorities, and off-brand Muslims from whatever territories extremists claim?

I don't claim to have a simple answer for this these problems. I think that in claiming to have a simple, and "scientific" answer, you are shameless.

For an excellent rebuttal of Pape's earlier work (which came to the same questionable conclusion), see Scott Atran's "The Moral Logic and Growth of Suicide Terrorism":

http://www.twq.com/06spring/docs/06spring_atran.pdf

I recommend everyone watch Dr. Pape’s full lecture on C-SPAN:

Robert Pape on Terrorism - Oct 12, 2010
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/id/235247

yes, mr. pape, it is all the fault of the USA. It has nothing to do with the same kind of Islamic terrorist acts in Spain, Australia, Germany, Russia, England, etc. (sarcasm intended)

It is a very shallow research. "Correlation does not imply causation." Ths means that although there might be a very high correlation between suicides in Florida and the temperature in Chicago, the temperature in Chicago is not necessarily the cause of the suicides in Florida.

IMO, it's the Religion, stupid!

we can debate about the motivations of islamic jihadis and their use of suicide attacks, but the bottom like here is that THIS IS A HOLY WAR. the difference betweence between the islamic radicals and the jewish and christian radicals, is that the islamic radicals have admitted it. the west hides its religious fantic agenda behind "democracy, human rights, and elections" yet when people like rumsfeld and wolfowitz produced war reports with passages of the bible on the cover, we see what the real objective is. when U.S troops pass out copies of the bible in pashto, urdu, arabic, farsi, etc, we see what the real objective is. if u look at the support for the war, why is always higher amongst evangelicals and zionists? the use of suicide bombing may be more savage, but the goal is the same as someone who uses drone strikes and "smart bombs". to KILL. suicide bombing is just a poor man's smart bomb. al-qaeda and taliban were founded by religious fanatics. the founder of blackwater (now known as Xe) was founded by Eric prince, a self proclaimed "Christian crusader" who has admitted to wanting to rid the world of Islam. how is his goal any dfferent then bin laden's? if anything, they are the best possible business partners. the same thing people in here are saying about the "muslim world" and how all muslims are killers and murderes is the samething being said by the other side about jews and christians. its real easy to sit there and think that this a "us vs them or good vs evil"issue, but the forces of religious extremisim are all playing us for fools.

http://www.amazon.com/Suicide-Bombers-Iraq-Strategy-Martyrdom/dp/1601270046

Heres a really good book which explains suicide bombings in iraq and also criticises Papes views.

But since Israel withdrew its army from Lebanon in May 2000, there has not been a single Lebanese suicide attack.

A further problem with this analysis is that according to the groups which used suicide bombing against Israel, Israel still occupying Lebanon, it has not fully left, therefore one would expect according to papes analysis that the suicide bombings would have continued.

I must have missed the "Mission Accomplished" broadcast on that one.

... and while it's clear that violent native reprisals against American/Western presence in foreign countries largely have the Islamic background commonality (can't deny the numbers and argument invoking non-ME colonies/former colonies per earlier posts in this string), a more complete analysis would surely be more nuanced than reducing it to simple religion-based inclinations.

Eh ?

Excellent article based on facts on the ground.

The pioneer behind modern suicide attacks were the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka, and they were the only major non-Muslim group to engage in suicide attacks over the past 25 years.

The Sri Lankan government has soundly defeated the Tigers and now controls 100% of the island's territory... I'll let you define whether it's an occupation or not...

Why is every major security service on earth studying Sri Lanka right now? Cause like it or not, they are the only country on earth to eradicate a guerilla war and suicide terrorism!

Why also no mention of Peru, where that government eradicated the Shining Path guerrillas a few years before 9/11?

This is a woefully incomplete article because Sri Lanka has not been mentioned...

Is this an analysis or hypothesis. According to me the author appears to be hypothesizing. He has done nothing but let loose all his wild imaginations. I'm afraid if people are allowed to indulge in this kinda hypothesizing, the whole security apparatus will be misled thereby exposing the world to great risks. The people who have been committing suicide attacks are highly motivated and thoroughly versed with their doctrines.

If money or occupation is the only determinant, then U.S has much more. U.S can send herds of such prepaid attackers and have all the terrorists killed. Can the author commit suicide attack if he is sufficiently paid in advance.

Sorry professor, you appear to have been occupying last benches in your student days. You should be back to lesson one.

let's get to the collapse right away. pape posits that u.s. interests would be better served by a policy of offshore balancing. but, the only reason one would be "offshore" in the first place is to go "onshore" when needed. therefore, if there never comes a time when we would need to be onshore, there is no reason to be offshore, either. and, if we are to be offshore and the time comes to go "onshore" we will always run into the problems pape posits.

having thus dispatched the meaningless distinction between offshore and onshore, serious minded people have to turn to the real issue, which is how to conduct the war with islamic jihadists. we can either sit here at home and make a call to interpol once in a while to see if all is quiet on the eastern front, or we can be proactive and take the war to them.

pape is really arguing that it's our fault--we invaded them, so they responded with suicide bombers. but, just like the "war on terrorism" is a war on a tactic, because the real war is against people dedicated to a proposition directly opposite our own, so too, is a focus on suicide bombing also just an explanation of one of those people's tactics, and therefore not very useful or enlightening.

"coming home" has long been advocated by our left lobby. go ahead, try it, i say. let's see how much peace breaks out. however, if the pape crowd is wrong, good luck with many strategic points of geography, resources, and political power having gone their way if and when we conclude that coming home was the correct policy. such a policy will either work, or mr. pape will be sorely disappointed and explain himself to all those who in the meantime fall under the enemy's sway.

in the broader sense, read the following article. it is an indication that it is not the fault of the west, but the fault of an enemy that wants to win and is doing everything it can to win, and will stop at nothing to achieve its goals.

----------------------------------

Egypt Cuts a Deal: Christians Fed to Muslim 'Lions'

by Raymond Ibrahim
October 18, 2010 at 5:00 am

http://www.hudson-ny.org/1608/egypt-christians-lions
Print Send Comment RSS
Share Share

A prominent Egyptian, Muhammad Salim al-Awwa, ex-secretary general of the International Union for Muslim Scholars, appeared on Al Jazeera on September 15, and, in a wild tirade, accused the Copts of "stocking arms and ammunition in their churches and monasteries" — arms imported from Israel, no less, as "Israel is in the heart of the Coptic Cause" — and "preparing to wage war against Muslims."

He warned that if nothing is done, the "country will burn," and urged Muslims to "counteract the strength of the [Coptic] Church." Al-Awwa further charged that Egypt's security forces cannot enter the monasteries to investigate for weapons — an amazing assertion, considering that Coptic monasteries are not only at the mercy of the state, but easy prey to Islamist/Bedouin attacks.

Needless to say, these remarks have inflamed Muslim passions, not to mention paranoia, against Egypt's Christians, who make up approximately 12% of the population. To make matters worse, right on the heels of al-Awwa's "monastery-conspiracy-theory," Islamist leaders began to circulate baseless rumors that the Church and Pope Shenouda III "kidnap" Coptic women, who willingly convert to Islam, and then trap the women in desert monasteries, "torturing" and "re-indoctrinating" them back to Christianity — even when the women in question publicly insist they never converted to Islam.

Due to all these allegations, since last month there have been at least ten mass demonstrations in Egypt — most numbering in the thousands — condemning the Copts, the Coptic Church, and Pope Shenouda. The "Front of Islamic Egypt" issued a statement promising the Copts a "bloodbath." Most recently, on October 8, Muslim demonstrators chanted "Shenouda, just wait, we will dig your grave with our own hands," while burning the 86 year-old pope's effigy.

At the very least, the usually intrusive Mubarak regime could have easily dispelled the absurd rumor that Coptic monks, among Egypt's most humble figures, were stockpiling weapons for an imaginary coup d'état in Egypt, by formally investigating and clearing the monasteries of the charge. The same intervention could also have aborted the ludicrous rumors that the Pope is kidnapping and torturing Coptic women who freely convert to Islam — an especially odd rumor, considering that the reverse is true: In Egypt, Christian women are regularly kidnapped and compelled to embrace Islam.

There appears to be no one to stop it — not even those most accountable: America's friend and ally, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and his government.

Worse, recent events indicate that the Mubarak regime is intentionally inciting Egypt's Muslims against the Copts.

To further exacerbate matters, on September 26, Al Azhar, a formal state body of Egypt, denounced a remark on Koran 5:17, which accuses Christians of being "infidels," made by a Coptic clergyman at an internal meeting on dogma, as "blasphemous." Moreover, it took this opportunity to state formally that citizenship rights in Egypt "are conditional on respect for the Islamic identity" of Egypt, thereby reversing any modern progress made regarding Egyptian equality, and reinforcing the Copts' historical role as dhimmis.. Pope Shenouda was further compelled to publicly apologize "if our Muslim brothers' feelings were hurt."

All this has been taking place in a nation where Christian and Jewish scriptures are systematically denounced as fabricated. Mere weeks earlier, a well known publishing house in Egypt issued a book dedicated to "proving" that Christians had forged the Bible. Such double standards are well entrenched: the Coptic clergyman had privately remarked on a Koranic verse, whereas the Egyptian government openly interferes with Christian doctrine, while preventing Muslims from converting to Christianity, in accordance to sharia's ridda, or apostasy, laws. For example, Mohammad Hegazy is one of many Egyptians who tried formally to change his religion from Muslim to Christian on his I.D. card —in Egypt, people are, Gestapo-like, categorized by their religion — only to be denied by the Egyptian court. (Many other such anecdotes abound.)

Considering the citizenship rights Copts enjoyed in the early-to-mid-20th century, how did things come to this pass? Much of this reversion can be traced to Mubarak's predecessor, Anwar Sadat, who altered Egypt's Constitution — by adding Article 2, "sharia is the principle source of legislation" — only to be rewarded, ironically, with assassination by the Islamist "Frankenstein monster" he had empowered. Since then, there has been a tacit agreement between the government and the Islamists. As Youssef Ibrahim puts it, the agreement "turned over to Islamists control in media, education, and government administrations in return for allowing Mr. Mubarak's rule to go on unchallenged, setting the stage … for his son, Gamal, to succeed him. As part of the deal, [Mubarak] agreed to feed Egypt's Christians to the growing Islamic beast."

The Copts now find themselves in a dire situation. Magdi Khalil, a human rights activist at the forefront of the "Coptic question," states that "Egypt is on the verge of chaos and change of regime, and there is a plan for Copts to pay the price of this predicted chaos, by directing the surplus violence, hate and barbarism towards them." This redirection onto the Copts is obvious even in subtle things: aside from the habitual anti-Copt indoctrination that goes on in mosques — all of the aforementioned demonstrations occurred immediately after Friday's mosque prayers — Egypt's state run public education system also marginalizes, if not ostracizes, the Copts (see, for example, Adel Guindy's "The Talibanization of Education in Egypt.")

More obvious proof of the government's complicity is the fact that, not only has it not prevented or dispersed the increasingly rabid demonstrations against the Copts — the way it viciously and unequivocally does whenever any protests are directed against itself — but Egyptian security, as Magdi Khalil affirmed in a phone conversation, actually facilitates, and sometimes participates, in these mass demonstrations. After all, Islamists who publicly call for the death of the Pope do so, writes Ibrahim Eissa, "knowing quite well that State Security will not touch them, since demonstrations are directed against the Pope and not the President, the Church and not the inheritance issue [Gamal Mubarak as successor of his father]. Those who go out in Jihad against 'inheritance,' democracy and election fraud are beaten mercilessly by security forces, but those who go out to incite sectarian violence between Muslims and Christians believe …that they are the friends and 'buddies' of the police and the State Security."

For centuries, the Copts — Egypt's Christian, indigenous inhabitants — have been subject to persecution, discrimination, humiliation, and over all subjugation in their homeland (etymologically, "Copt" simply means "Egyptian"). In the medieval era, such treatment was a standard aspect of sharia's dhimmi codes -- for dhimmis: conditionally tolerated religious minorities -- first ratified under Caliph Omar in the 7th century and based on Koran 9:29.

Conversely, during the colonial era and into the mid 20th century, as Egypt experimented with Westernization and nationalism, religious discrimination was markedly subdued. Today, however, as Egypt all but spearheads the Islamist movement — giving the world Sayyid Qutb, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Aymen Zawahiri in the process. As Egypt reverts to its medieval character, the Copts find themselves again in a period of severe persecution.

As history teaches, whenever a majority group casts all its woes onto a minority group, tragedy often follows. This is especially so when the majority group in question begins taking on an Islamist—that is, intolerant, violent, and medieval — character. Yet if Egypt's "secular" government and its U.S. ally are willing to sacrifice the Coptic scapegoat to appease the ever-burgeoning Islamist monster it has been nurturing for four decades, to whom can Egypt's Christians look for relief?

Raymond Ibrahim is associate director of the Middle East Forum, author of The Al Qaeda Reader, and guest lecturer at the National Defense Intelligence College.

It seems that the author is asking a very limited question, and coming to a narrow conclusion. The problem is not really suicide bombing in and of itself, though that's what caught America's attention on 9/11. The problem is Islamist extremism.

So the solution (occupying or not occupying) does not have to be optimized in terms of what reduces suicide bombings, which are just a symptom or a tactic.

What we set out to do after 9/11 was to reduce the dangers of Islamic extremism to our way of life, and our allies. One danger is suicide bombings, but the major danger is for Islamists to control and hold territory (like in Af), destabilize allies and acquire the apparatus of a functioning army (like in Pak), etc.

Sucide bombings are a tactic of violent jihad which was first preached, in it's modern form, by Sayyid Qutb in the 50's-60's. Jihad at that time had little to do w/ occupation and more to do w/ the elimination Western Judo-Christian culture and the return to Islamic Sharia based culture. So ultimately sucide bombings have more to do w/ Islam extremism than occupation. Otherwise, how does one explain a sucide attack on an all girls school in Afghanistan?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article3882980.ece
Are 10 year old girls going to school somehow occupying Afghan land and therefore motivating the Taliban to murder them via sucide bombing? Or is suide bombing more tactic of violent jihad than anything relating to occupation? I'd say the latter and therefore I disagree w/ this argument.

Why are you so quick to shout Pape down? These findings match up with the 111 page Defense Science Board report.

I know it's hard to admit that you got duped into a false narrative. It's more cathartic blaming an entire religion or people.

epic fail, neocons

While I was reading the article, I was sure what comments to expect. "It's not the occupation, they hate our freedoms", "We're doing everything good", "9/11 was an aggressive attack" and so on. Yet, nothing in the world happens without cause.
The "dots" leading up to 9/11 were scattered, because much less American aggression happened at that time - wars in Iraq, Somalia, covert actions in Yemen, etc. Now there are many more acts of American aggression - in fact every day of the occupation - the dots are connecting again. No lame airport security can prevent a terrorist if hes determined enough.

Suicide bombers become suicide bombers because Islam promises them a place in paradise when they kill "enemies of god". That's all there is to it really.... Everything else is just a matter of finding the "right enemy " to kill be it an the so called occupier, a blasphemer, a decadent westerner name it.

Refusal to understand direct cause-and-effects of the American game in the Middle East is what can be called the ‘Israeli Game’ – it’s the same kind of idiocy that has gotten Israel into so much trouble in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the same kind of incredible strategic blunder that has now created the effective ‘One State Reality’ of a greater Apartheid Israel.

But it’s more than an failure to understand for America– it has been a deliberately manipulated blindness – the blindness has been engineered by Israel and her Israel Lobby and Neocons

Israelis has long ethnically cleansed Palestine, bomb away, kill, maim and then cry to the world and pretend that this all has nothing to do with people fighting back against her - and then have the chutzpah to call that ‘fighting back’ against that Israeli state terrorism – or as her Neocon’s endlessly parrot - ‘Islamofascist terrorism’. It’s not Israeli brutality or our outrageous and illegal support for Israel – it’s irrational and baseless ‘Muslim terrorism’.

It really is idiocy and shows a convenient but very dysfunctional and deliberate level blindness to the basic relationship of cause and effect - Israeli generals themselves have repeatedly admitted as much over the years.

Israel is the ‘Queen of Denial’ and she now has us playing her extraordinarily dangerous game for her with our ‘Long War against Islam for Israel’ - even more so now since 911 than before 911 though our dangerous and outrageous support for Israeli crimes were very reason we were attacked on 911 in the first place.

The spectacle of Bush hurriedly pushed up on stage before the nation and sputtering ‘it’s not because of Israel we were attacked – they hate us because of our freedoms’ is a classic. Even though Bin Laden, Kahilid Sheik Momhammed, as well as our 911 Commission, and our Iraq study - all say it was precisely because of our incredibly dangerous support of Israel and the larger Israeli and American game in the Middle East that we were attack on 911. Bush was immediately pushed on stage and telepromted to tell America that our dangerous support of illegal Israeli policies and crimes was not the reason we were attacked – anything else is the reason but oh not for our Pro-Israel policies in the Middle East –anything but spilling the beans on that.

That is why America has been manipulate to hate Islam and want to attack Iran, or Iraq, or kill Muslims anywhere else on earth. The anger we should have had of our incredibly stupid and illegal Pro-Israel polcies – policies ginned up and supported by the Israel Lobby and Neocons over decades had delivered us some bigtime payback – was transmorgified and diverted into even more anger and support towards Israel’s enemies instead. Brilliant

To immediately provide cover for our outrageous and illegal support of Israeli ethnic-cleansing in Palestine is precisely why Bush stood up to spout those inanities. The Neocons and Israel Lobby pushed Bush out on the stage, rolled their Israeli PR across his teleprompter that ‘it’s Islamists that irrationally hate us not for our Pro-Israel policies’ – but only and insanely because we are free’. That Isral and her Israel Lobby had to have Bush immediately stand up and proceed to directly obfuscate the very clear message sent on 911 by Bin Laden was critical – so Bush jumped up and threw sand in our eyes for the Israelis. Thus set up - Cheney and the rest of the Neocons launched the ‘Long War against Islam for Israel’ and the rest as been history

Thus has come our doubled-down support of Israel instead of questioning and changing our incredibly dangerous Pro-Israel polciies – or paying attention to people like our 911 Commission or Iraq Study Group who have told us precisely that. Thus Israel and her Lobby merged a new ‘Global War against Terrorism’ and now a ‘Long War against Israel’s Enemies’ with the Israeli Clean Break Plan. Both Neocon plans – now nearly seamlessly fused

Israel used 911 to merge her ‘Clean Break Plan for Securing the Realm’ with the new ‘Long War against Islam’. I consider this to be the greatest coup Israel, her Israel Lobby, and her Neocons had ever pulled off against America – the American treasury and might of the military industrial complex and strategic America now has been devoted to and suborned to this Israeli military strategy ever since. Till the last dog dies

The Iranians have been extremely lucky so far – if not for Pakistan on the verge of collapse and the coup d’ gras to the American economy such an attack would percipitate - the coming American attack on Iran for Israeli interests would already have triggered. And thus would seal American bondage to Israel for the next thousand years. The gun held to Iran’s head clicked on an empty chamber in the last 6 mos of the Bush administration and has clicked once or twice since – it hasn’t been for want of trying that we haven’t found a way to attack yet another of Israel’s enemies in the Middle East for Israel

That our Neocons and Israeli Lobby have taken a page from the Israeli playbook and with their lies and agitprop convinced America that we should play this same failed game the Israelis play has been tragic for America

It’s time to stop following Israeli policies around the world and start behaving as adults who don't believe Israeli magical thinking propaganda that there are no reactions for crimes we commit in Iraq, Pakistan, Iran, or in support of Israeli terror in Apartheid Israel/Palestine

Time to practice a little more of the 'golden rule' – not to pretend that basic laws of cause and effect to not exist and follow to follow the Israelis like sheep

This article is quite a spin. Islamic suicide bombers and terrorism date back centuries to the assassins. This is always about Islam. Islamic radicals keep the mainstream in check, preventing social progress.

In a military campaign, terrorism and suicide bombing is an acknowledgement that they do not have the military capacity to defeat the enemy militarily.

In Islam it is the highest honor to please Allah by dying to kill infidels. Any study that does not recognize this is off base. Al-Qaeda has it right. Muslim states are moderate because their leaders are bad Muslims. Violent fundamentalists have the Quran on their side.

Did the Neocons/Israeli Lobby get us to attack Iraq to provide cover for Israeli attacks on Palestine and the rest of the Muslim world in the Middle East?

Did Israelis make us the pot so we couldn’t call the Israel kettle black – and if we did – they could scream anti-semitism?

Is that all part of the Neocon/Israeli Lobby plan to make it possible for Israeli crimes against Muslims to continue?

Is the Israel Lobby making us fight the whole Muslim world as an analogous template and cover for the Israeli ethnic cleansing of Muslims in Palestine and her attacks in the Middle East?

Are they really that bad? That evil/crazy/sociopathic/manipulative? - oh yeah you better believe it

Can we please have a little more information about the histories of these authors, especially Mr Pape's background ? Then we will really know where this comes from.

Are you aware that neocons are no longer in charge of anything, and that you are now fighting a past war?

Professor Pape,

Please explain for us the cause of suicide attacks against civilian targets on American soil or at American embassies abroad. This might be of more benefit to the discourse than the childishly obvious point that military occupation prompts increased frequency of suicide attacks against military personnel in war zones.

While doing so, you may wish to identify the military occupation that preceded the September 11 attacks.

Why were there terrorist attacks in Israel before 1967?

When Gaza was occupied by Egypt, why were there no attacks to the western border?

Prior to June, 1967, why weren't the Jordanians attacked?

Could it be that anti-semitism trumps occupation?

Maybe their leaders wish to destroy anyone and any country that won't submit to Islam.

" they do not have the right to hit back at their oppressor with whatever means they can muster?"

I'm oppressed by my own government and I don't have the right to use any means that I can muster. OK. Lets see what is said when the above quote is applied to the person making it. Will they agree then that the ones hurting their families have a right to do so? I doubt it. If so be nowhere around such a person.

Near the founding of the United States, self-determination of nations was an influential idea, for example, in the Declaration of Independence. The United States has ignored that idea often in history, seemingly believing that self-determination is an idea that best applies only to the United States.

If the authors of the Declaration were right that all nations have the right to self-determination, it is no wonder that citizens of countries half a world away hate the fact that their countries are occupied by military forces of the United States. It must me unpleasant, to say the least, to see soldiers on every street corner, much less soldiers from an occupying army. It seems that the United States has forgotten the important lesson that the founders of the country expressed.

I must take issue with Professor Pape’s use, or rather misuse, of the term “occupation,” which has a very specific meaning in international law. “Occupation” refers to a situation where territory of a belligerent is placed under the authority of a hostile army. The hostile military force then exercises the powers of governance that would otherwise be exercised by the regularly constituted government. Hague Regulations, Arts. 42 and 43.

Very clearly, neither the US nor any other foreign power has engaged in an occupation in Afghanistan since 9/11. Initially, there were the Interim and Transitional Authorities under the Bonn Agreement, which was created by Afghans for the governance of their country until a new Constitution could be adopted. The Transitional Authority was superseded by an Afghan government duly elected and empowered under the new Afghan Constitution. At no time was any portion of Afghanistan administered by US military or civilian authorities, or by any other foreign force as an occupant. The US and its allies occupied Iraq for a time, but subsequently turned control of the Iraqi government over to Iraqis and terminated the occupation. In both countries, the US maintains a substantial military presence, but that presence is with the consent of the governments of the two countries. To call such a presence an occupation is as egregious a misstatement as referring to the majority of Iranians as Sunni Arabs, or as claiming the US has a parliamentary system. Such usage is really an appeal to emotions, rather than part of a reasoned argument.

Professor Pape appears to be concerned about foreign military presence in predominately Muslim countries, rather than occupations, but these are two very different things. Conflating the two concepts raises doubts as to the rigor of the analysis. He could argue legitimately that foreign military presence in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other nations creates dissatisfaction in the population and is itself a destabilizing factor. But to use “occupation” in such a loose, inaccurate, and emotive manner does both his arguments and his readers a disservice.

Pape cites arithmetical numbers to support his rejection of the link between Islam and suicide terrorism and his claim that it is foreign occupations which explain the use of suicide targeting civilians to achiee a political objective. His numbers-game argument is a prototype of methodological errors. .
He misdefines occupation as the stationement of foreign troops in a country. and does not sistinguish between hostile stationment and invited stationment. Thus, he categorizes coalition troops in Iraq and Afghanistan as a hostile military even though the Iraqis and Afghanis in elections voted for governments which want the troops to remain.
He dismisses the countercase of Germany and Japan because the occupying forces were close to the people in social distance and religion--The religion explanation does not hold here. The Germans followed a quasi-religion of being a master race and the Japanese junta saw themselvs as Samurai. Close social distance has some explanatory value but there is a much better explanation. Both were ruled by ideological and religious despots who brainwashed their people to think that they were superior of others and were destined to build huge empires. Both had a rude wake-up call when the inferiors crushed them militarily which shocked them into realizing that they had been following false gods and led them to approve the "occupations."i
He falls into the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc--the event before causes the event afterwards. Some Muslim countries were Pape-occupied and ergo suicide murdering developed. Now one can argue that Pape-occupation will engender resistance but resistance is not equivalent to blowing up civilians to further the cause. Occupations in the whole period of colonization were resisted but not by suicide murdering-more recently, I cite South Africa, Rhodesia, Guatemala, San Salvador, India, Vietnam, Jewish resistance against the Brits in Palestine, all the countries occupied first by Nazis and then by the Soviet Union in Europe, etc. etc. The only anomolous exception in a non-Muslim country is Sri Lanka where suicide bombing has been stopped by military action.
Now that should have given Pape pause to investigate why suicide murdering comes out of the woodworks only in Musllim countries. He then might have discovered by studying the Islamic scriptures (the Koran, the Siran, and the Hadiths) that warriors who die in the cause of Islam do not die in our sense. The present life is depicted as a kind of inferior phase we have to go through before beginning our real life in the next world. Moreover suicide in contrast to the Judeo-Christian religions is not condemned if it is committed for the cause. So the Muslim suicide bomber is no kamikaze who sacrifices his life out of patriotism--he is making a career choice. If Pape had studied interviews with failed suicide murderers, he would learned that they were trained to think by their handlers that they would not give up their life when they pulled the detonator. but would instead progress into a much better paradisical life, taking with them their family when they die.
Pape also ignored the fact that Bin Ladin and his 9/11 crew were not motivated by occupation. The Saudi government had invited Christian troops into Saudi Arabia because of fears that Saddam Hussein might might invade Saudi Arabia next if he t got away with the occupation of Kuweit. This infuriated Bin Ladin since his selection of passages in the holy texts of Islam (are you paying attention, Professor Pape) forbade infidels to enter Saudi Arabia. That's why Mohammed ethnically cleansed Arabia of all infidels.
A final example of the need for context when citing numbers. Suicide bombing did not stop after Israel ended the occupation of Gaza because of its withdrawal. It ended because the Israelis developed techniques to stop the suicide attacks--and foil planned attacks. It is true that suicide murders ended in Lebanon after Israel withdrew. But Hetzbollah--which means the Army of God--are you paying attention, Professor Pape, did stop using that weapon after the Israeli withdrawal because it simply rocketed israel for years. And that was stopped by the hard lesson of the Israeli counterattack.
And something else Pape overlooked. The Islamic religions is an a la carte religion with peaceful sections and other very violent imperialistic sections. All of its the word of God or the teachings or model life of His Prophet. The Islamists do not interpret their scriptures to further their cause--they follow selected holy passages. And these Islamists believe a religious command that all lands ever conquered by Islam remain ever more an Islamic possession and the faithful are called to strive to regain their territory no matter how long it takes.
OK, at leat they never conquered the Americas so we are safe. But not so fast, it also calls on the Faithful to convert the whole world to their one true religion. So watch out if they get too many nuclear weapons.
.

1920 Revolution Brigade
Abu-Dajanah al-Ansari Martyrdom Brigade
Aden-Abyan Army
Al Madina Regiment
Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade
Al-Fatah
Al-haramayn Brigades
Al-Jaysh al-Islami li Tahrir al Amaken al Muqaddasa
Al-Mourabito un Group
Al-Qaeda
Al-Qaeda in Iraq
Al-Qaeda in Islamic North Africa
Al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia
Al-Qaeda Organization in the Islamic Maghreb
Al-Shabaab
AMAL
Amjad Farooqi group
Ansar al-Islam
Arab Egyptian League
Arab Resistance Movement - Al-Rashid Brigades
Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party
Armed Islamic Group
Assirat al-Moustaqim
Babbar Khalsa International
Chechen Separatists
Egyptian Islamic Jihad
Fatah al-Islam
Great Eastern Raiders Front
HAMAS
Harakat ul-Mujahidin
Hezbollah
Hizb-I Islami
Hizbul Mujahedin
Islamic Holy War
Islamic Jihad
Islamic Resistance
Islamic Revolutionary Movement
Islamic State of Iraq
Jaish Ansar al-Sunnah
Jaish-e-Muhammad
Jama'at Al-Tawhid Wa'al-Jihad
Jemaah Islamiya
Jund al-Sham
Kurdistan Workers Party
Lashkar-e-Islam
Lashkar-e-Jhangvi
Lashkar-e-Taiba
Lebanese Ba'ath Party
Lebanese Communist Party
Lebanese National Resistance Front
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam
Mujahideen Shura Council in Iraq
Mujahideen Youth Movement
Mujahidin Shura Council
Mujahidin Shura Council
Partisans of the Sunni
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine
Popular Resistance Committees
Revolutionary People's Liberation Party/Front
Riyadus Salikhiin
Soldiers of the Prophet's Companions Group
Syrian Social Nationalist Party
Taliban
Tanzim
Tehrik Taliban-e-Pakistan
Unknown Group
Vanguard of Arab Christians

Remind me again when the US "occupied" Pakistan? Or who the vast majority of Iraqi suicide bombers targeted?

Yet another example of how the field of Middle East Studies has collapsed in rigour.

The Muslim Brotherhood founded in the 20s in Egypt is the guiding group of all the subsequent jihadists and suicide murderers. It reacted to the the general decay of Muslim power not by modernizing a la Ataturk but by arguing that the problem was caused by straying from the fundamentalist principles of Islam going back to the Caliphate. The evil therefore was not so much occupation but the values of the Enlightenment which swayed many Muslims including secularists from deviating from the Prophet's path. This explains why so many of the victims of the suicide murderers are other Muslims who are condemned by the jihadists as the worst of all enemies of Allah, the apostates.. And they will continue to be the victims of the suicide murderers in non-fundamentalist Muslim states whether independent or "occupied" by force or by invitation.
I agree with you that Middle East studies have been monopolized by well-meaning leftists who practice reverse discrimination (3rd World people get a pass for their actions because they can't be held accountable like Westerners) and who find reason to blame any wrong on Westerners.

GimmeABreak -- well written and well articulated and truthful counter point to the Pape Fallacies. I had to know if Michael Moore was insisting Juan Wiliams read this crap in order to 'Better understand" Muslim terrorism and the "real cause" behind Muslim terrorism, the author's reasoning had to be flawed, and merely serve as an echo chamber for Michael Moore's misguided ...to nice a word.. for Moore's BS.

If Pape really cared about the reasons for terrorist suicide attacks he'd not only read, and try to comprehend "The Moral Logic & Growth of Suicide Terrorism" but he'd also read Jessica Sterns' “Terror in the Name of God: Why Religious Militants Kill,” in which she conducts one on one interviews with extremists of every stripe: Christian, Jewish, Muslim, anti-abortion militants, even followers of Timothy McVeigh.

Here's what ONE religious extremist had to say to explain his hatred for America:

American culture, he tells her, ''is absolutely destroyed by Afro-Americanism. The lowest of the low.'' And: ''America is also causing terrible damage . . . by exporting its culture. American culture should be treated the same as we treat drugs . . . as a poison. . . . In America, people have no education, no religion. They play with computers, television, pop music. These people have no values to fight for"

Maybe we should title that segment " It's The Afro American, Stupid". That came from a JEWISH extremist in Israel.

One can draw any conclusion about the root causes of suicide terrorism based on certain information, especially when he seeks to ONLY find evidence that fits his already determined conclusion, as in the case of Pape.

It's NO wonder Michael Moore is enamored with Pape. Bigoted minds think alike. And both More and Pape share a common bigotry towards the American Military, and Americanism is general - altho they like to pretend its' about 'American Foreign Policy". - which neither of them understands nor can explain or define - so they simplify it mostly for themselves - and call it "American Military Occupation". Yeah. that the root cause of all that suicide terrorism... America's "foreign policy" and America's "Military Occupation" of "Muslim" countries -- that is until its Israel's fault!

Prof Pape,
People in Muslim counties have reason to hate American Foreign Policy. Most Muslim countries are ruled by Mafia Gangs. America supplies this ruling Mafia Gangs with recognition and succor. In these countries citizens are abused (raped, jailed, tortured, etc). Here are some countries rules by Mafia Gangs under American protection: Pakistan (ruled by Mafia Gang called Paki Army), Jordan (ruled by the Mafia Gang called Hashimite Family); Egypt (ruled by Mafia Gang called National Democratic Party); Central Arabia (ruled by Mafia Gang called Saudi Family - they have named the country after the Family). This list is by no means exhaustive.

Prof Pape, you should remember that Bin Laden was an America supporter until the Mafia Gang called Saudi Family stationed American troops in Central Arabia - Bin Laden like a majority of Muslims were and are against "Foreign" troops being stationed in Muslim Holy Lands. The Mafia Gang called Saudi Royals care not one bit about Muslim sentiments; they are worried about the safety of the Gang itself.

If America stops recognising and supporting (often times even installing) Mafia Gangs ruling Muslim Countries, 95% of the populations of these countries would have nothing against America. The peoples of these countries do NOT hate America; they hate their own tyrannical non-representative rulers. These countries are involved in civil wars. And Neocon-Zionist America is participating in civil wars on the side of Mafia Gangs, which have usurped power in most of the Muslim world, often with American support.

It is not DIRECT American occupation. America has outsourced occupation to Mafia Gangs. The Mafia Gangs occupy/control the countries and America supports the Mafia Gangs.

The Muslim occupations that deserve our attention are:
1. Darfur: Arab occupation of the Sultanate of Darfur: 500,000 murdered; 3,000,000 displaced

2. Kurdistan: Arab, Turkish, and Iranian occupation of Kurdistan, an independent nation of 30 million, with its indigenous culture, language, and history entitled to self-determination: 200,000 murdered

3. Southern Azerbaijan: Iranian occupied southern Azerbaijan with its ancient capital of Tabriz, 20 million Azeri's kept in captivity by a fascist government.

4. Balouchistan: Iranian and Pakistani occupied

5. Western Sahara: Larger than the state of California, occupied by Arab League member Morocco, the ethnically diverse Sarahawi people want their independence

6. South Sudan: Get ready for some real blood letting as the Arab League member, Sudan, tries to prevent South Sudan from gaining its independence and sovereignty over its oil resources.

These are the stories that should be in the news at Foreign Policy Magazine , not the same old tired Arab apologies we get from writers like Pape.

I hope you won't be shocked if I tell you that all countries follow what their governments consider to be their own self-interest. Aside from the Cold War situation when the US and the Soviet Union fought their wars with proxies and stiffled anti-American or anti-Soviet dissent if it was democratic, the US would prefer to pursue its self-interest with democratic countries. Note how the US is trying to bring democracy to Iraq.
But the US is not omipotent nor can it force democracy on authoritarian secular or religious countries--as we are learning in Iraq and Iran. The "mafi" Arab-governments you mention are installed by their own elites and these are dictatorial and accepted by a people who have never enjoyed real democracy . This is not surprising since unfortunately it took even the West many centuries to create democratic countries. To blame the lack of democracy and oligarchical regimes in Arab countries on Neo-con America or the fit -all-problems Zionist conspiracy is not worthy of you since you seem to be intelligent. So hate American foreign policy if you wish but don't blame the rotten governments of failed Arab states on others--look in the mirror.
You are too nice about Bin Laden. He was not only a supporter of America but he was a Cold-War creation of the US when it waged war to topple the Communist and Soviet-supported government in Afghanistan. It went so far as to open up schools for girls in the country side. This outraged the Muslim tribal mysogynists so much that they took arms against the Communist regime. But would you be shocked to learn that some misguided self-interested policies of countries have unintended consequences which are counter-productive? Unfortunately, one can't redo the past; one has to live with it. Which means that Bin Ladin and his suicide murderers need to be stopped for the good of the world. regardless of how he became the fanatic, delusional criminal he is.
And instead of blaming others, use your energy to further the cause of democracy. It's tough but that's why so many people in the West died for that cause until they prevailed.

Mr. Pape's argument that it is all about occupation is old and tired. However, his willingness to make up facts is what is new year. Two of the example he brings are such obvious distortion to reach mind-boggling proportions. His lunatic assertion that the withdrawal of Israel from Lebanon in 2000 ended terrorism their make me wonder if he leaves on the same planet as the rest of us. What does he call the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers that resulted in the second Lebanon war. What about the end of the occupation of Gaza, where the day after the withdrawal brought immediate rocket attacks and subsequently kidnapping of the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit.

What about the fight over Kashmir and what about the 1948 UN resolution that established the State of Israel. In both cases, these are OCCUPATIONS according to the Muslim world. If we start going down the path of accepting the Islamic Fundamentalist terrorism will end only when so called "occupation" will end, we will have to accept the Muslim world definition of what is being occupied and that may include areas all the way as north as Spain. That is what Mr. Pape is suggesting!

Your logic doesn't track, what country were we occupying on 9/11?

You said it yourself...

"...research shows that resistance to occupations is especially likely to escalate to suicide terrorism when there is a difference between the predominant religion of the occupier and the predominant religion of the occupied. "

The fact that Islam (especially the radical forms) teaches special, everlasting reward for martyrdom has nothing to do with suicide bombers. er.... ok.... whatever... you're the prof, I'm just a guy who at least knows how to put 2 and 2 together and get 4.

I'm sure most of the mentally and emotionally challenged that are routinely recruited for suicide operations (vs those that seek salvation in volunteering ala 9-11 terrorists) never even get to meet the "occupiers", instead being fed a healthy dose of BS. It's a shame you take no quarter in helping to shovel it for them.

Your assessments are spot on and it is a pity that so many talking heads and spin doctors here cannot arrive at the simple truth.

Like all the rhetorical schemes and tropes that make up "The Palestinian Narrative", Pape's scribbling deluges us with questionable data presented as facts. The entire article is a compendium of distortions, deletions, and over-generalizations (the basic units of disinformation propaganda).

Most (but not all) of the comments follow the same technique... the Big Lie method,.

Would Pape, or any of the anti-Israel commentators, care to explain how it has come about that the Mandate for Palestine, followed by the British 1922 Partition, is never examined?

The Mandate and Partition were legal actions intended to establish the Jewish State. The terms of the Mandate still has the force of law, and were it not for the complicity of the Oligarchy that dictates policy in Israel, the legal rights under law would be the focus of discussion. Instead, we're forever in a quagmire with useless negotiations that seem to be modeled on the tea party in Alice in Wonderland.

Because the evidence supporting the legal rights of Israel is so simple and irrefutable, it's been necessary, over the past 62 years, to fabricate a distorted "narrative" woven from myths and lies.

Looking back, we can see how Britain's Islamic allies opposed a Jewish State on theological grounds and played upon the Brits' barely hidden antisemitism. Had the Partition been carried out as originally written, large numbers of Jews would've left Eastern Europe and the number of Jews killed in the Shoah would've been drastically reduced.

Pape and other anti-Jewish-State activists (some of the worst of them actually Jews) ought to be more faithful to the Rule of Law and Property. By every norm of International Law, all the land from the Jordan to the Mediterranean is the legal property of the Jewish People. This is so easily proven that it's impossible to claim ignorance.

For a concise examination of Jewish legal rights to Israel, Google "Eli Hertz Myths and Facts", "David Naggar The Case for a Larger Israel", and "Howard Grief Israel's Legal Borders". If someone can make a legal refutation of the evidence these gentlemen bring, many of us would be very interested in seeing it.

ACCRETE786 says this:

I think if you actually research it you will find the tank shells outnumber the rockets fired by Hamas by 10 to 1...

I have not done that scientific research, but I am gladly give ACCRETE786 the benefit of doubt.

To strengthen his position and logic, I readily admit that actual research has proven that American tank and ship shells, torpedoes, bombs (including two atom) vastly outnumbered all the projectiles fired against US during WW2. Moreover, Germany was so kind that she did not damage a single home in the US, while we...well... were not so humane.

Thank you, ACCRETE786. I am convinced now, American people fought on the wrong side of Plutocrats, Jews, British Imperialists against Progressive, Working Class, Socialist Germany and Anti-Colonialist Japan. In fact, they did not manufacture enough munitions to bomb our cities and thus protest the savagery of American Military and American Government lead by war criminal Roosevelt.

Extensive research into the causes of suicide terrorism proves Islam isn't to blame -- the root of the problem is foreign military occupations. GimmeABreak -- well written and well articulated and truthful counter point to the Pape Fallacies. I had to know if Michael Moore was insisting Juan Wiliams read this crap in order to 'Better understand" Muslim terrorism and the "real cause" behind Muslim terrorism, the author's reasoning had to be flawed, and merely serve as an echo chamber for Michael Moore's misguided. "Yes, these attacks are overseas and mostly focused on military and diplomatic targets. So too, however, were the anti-American suicide attacks before 2001. It is important to remember that the 1995 and 1996 bombings of U. S. troops in Saudi Arabia, the 1998 bombings of the U florists. S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen were the crucial dots that showed the threat was rising prior to 9/11. Today, such dots are occurring by the dozens every month. So why is nobody connecting them?". Everything else is just a matter of finding the "right enemy " to kill be it an the so called occupier, a blasphemer, a decadent westerner name it.