I just googled the subject and couldn't any attacks at all the other way round at all.

was at a Sunni mosque

Seems to be an exception. Retaliation I guess,

eg Jun 28th: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j_EmM8WAEZNghtbCJvZYk-FYThhA?docId=CNG.36b43abb63e7feca224e9826aa38301d.4b1
Jul 8th: http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2013/jul/08/ml-iraq/
Jul 14th: http://news.yahoo.com/iraq-blast-sunni-mosque-baghdad-kills-11-200208760.html

What the ratios of victims are, I don't know.

from power without replacing him with a less terrible, but still effective tribal warlord strongman.

Were there any suicide attacks during the Saddam Hussein era? I can't find evidence of such via online search.

Saddam, being a Sunni, made sure that the majority of the population, Shiites, where kept under his thumb.

So what we are witness to now, since we completely fucked up that nation, is a religious civil war with bombs as their main form of attack.

from what i understand. not necessarily free, but the trains probably ran on time and women could get university educations and the like.

they more than likely had a functioning infrastructure.

That's why the Iraqi government is so nervous about Syria if the rebels win they think they'll be next. How ironic that we could help overthrow the government we spent trillions to put in place.

Is there a reason why that is the attack mode of choice so frequently?

and creating terror and showing commitment. It's like in the movie the Godfather when Michael knew the Cuba rebels would win.

The bomb moves, fairly innocuous, to where it can do the most damage. If it can't get to where it's intended, it moves away and doesn't go "boom." Perhaps it finds another target. If it's detected, it can go off--unlike a time bomb.

It's culturally justifiable. It's a brave thing to give your life for your nation. There's a bit of glory and prestige involved in it. Just look at the Palestinians and "martyrdom." Especially if you're humiliated. That might mean something that happend 5 years ago, and humiliation is often group-based. A Shi'ite does something to your cousin, all Shi'ites everywhere have dishonored all of your family. So you can take revenge on any Shi'ite(s). Communal justice used to have workarounds to vent frustration; we educated folk disapprove of such crude mechanisms. Without them, communal justice festers and eventually makes mincemeat of most Western ideas of a democracy--it plagues a lot of Arab countries, in which there are power struggles between groups (instead of oppression by one group with no hope of fighting back), it plagues Afghanistan, it plagues Pakistan and even India.

Making it more attractive is hopelessness. In some cases, of a better life. In other cases, because as a man you may never be able to have what it takes to get married. No barebones, "living on a shoestring." You should have dowry, or at least a job, tolerable income, and a furnished apartment. Otherwise you're not doing what you need to for marriage. It's a big deal in a lot of Arab countries with young unemployed men who are culturally restricted from a "good" marriage.


And in some cases it's profitable. You're rich and want to strike, you hire a poor teen or young man, with or without his parents' consent.

I would imagine there were a lot of angry and hopeless Iraqis then as well, but no suicide attacks. Why?

I can't really answer many of your questions or give you much insight. In fact, I'll probably leave you more confused after reading this.

From what I understand, not all suicide attacks are truly carried out by people that wish to die for a cause. I've heard numerous reports of gunmen selecting a random family and forcing one of the members to drive a car to the gate of a US base or else the rest of the family would be killed. However, this is probably only a small percentage.

You don't see any of the leadership of these various groups conducting suicide missions. They've done a great job convincing their followers of something.

Most suicide bombers are young and, as a result, are very susceptible to being brainwashed and being manipulated. Many of these people live in small towns and are very isolated from the rest of the world. Their community leadership tells them something or gives them some absurd reason why they should be willing to kill themselves for a cause and they buy it.

I heard and I saw it several times that people who know they are going to die in a suicide attack shave all of their pubic and body hair prior to attacking in preparation for cleansing their bodies prior to their entrance to heaven. Many of the bodies we recovered after firefights were shaven and prepared in such a way. That was one of the ways you could tell that the person you shot was a combatant or not.

I'm sure I'll come up with more to add, but as I warned you earlier, I don't think I really helped to give you any clarity.

I really do appreciate it.

Still trying to sort out all these questions in my mind - your insights are enormously valuable!

(1) Young people who don't know better

(2) People who have given up hope



I'm betting my money on #2

I would think there must have been. But no suicide attacks then. Why?

Was a common complaint under Yelstin's Russia

At least under Saddam, there were rules. They were harsh, but you could avoid punishment by following the rules.

Now - no rules. Mob rules.

When you're fighting a far superior foe there's no honor in losing and not fighting.

Esp. if there's a "calmist" philosophy you can appeal to--sufism, for instance. Or when you're suspect, like Shi'ites in Iraq, after a war with Shi'ite Iran, and have to choose being being patriotic or loyal to your particular sect. Or when things are getting materially better.

The Hungarians rose up when they saw a chink in the USSR's power. The Czechs rose up when they saw a softening of Soviet intent. Same for the Caucasians.


You also can't discount fear. If you're a suicide bomber and go after Saddam or Assad (before the current "troubles&quot there was no doubt your act would be expensive. Your family would pay, and pay dearly. You blow yourself up and your troubles are done. But your parents, your siblings, your wife, your kids ... They will be tortured, they will be imprisoned, they will be broke, and there's a good chance some will die. The best way to repress is to make sure that anybody who might object believes that the state's resources are sufficient to find him, target him, and ruthless enough to take out any revenge on his kin. If you think you won't be found, that there's so many objecting that the state's unlikely to be able to target you even if it knows, and you think that the state will give your family a pass, then resistance is cheap.

I have heard of some cases where people who are forced to by a group that kidnaps and threatens to kill their families if they do not.

That as a US citizen I don't really have an answer to your questions. We spent over a trillion dollars, lost many lives, and much more. I should be more educated on a place we savaged. Should have never gone in. Fuck Bush.

Also, it's sad how these attacks get a quick mention in the news and then are forgotten. They all tend to blend together. They barely seem to even get much discussion here.

Like much of the region the countries borders were imposed upon them after World Wars. Having a government forced upon them, being thrown together with people they may feel culturally isolated from, being used as a puppet in international politics/conflicts.

The current conflict between Shia and Sunni in Iraq is IMO a reflection of Saddam being Sunni and his Baathist party's years of violent suppression of the Shia majority. But there is also a historical context as well to violence between the two. The preference for Suicide is probably based upon it's effectiveness but also a culture where martyrdom is celebrated, life has lower value compared to family honor and young people without a lot of good alternatives.

...and people understand that in a totally unregulated "free market," it does not matter how hard you work; you ain't in the club and you ain't gettin' in the club.

...and the only way that's gonna change is if people are willing to die for it.

Pretty shitty taking out innocent people in the process, but when an unregulated "free market" controlled by vampires is the rule of the land and is tolerated, who is innocent anymore?

Children? Yes, they are innocent. That's why an unregulated "free market" is willing to use them as human shields. Then we debate about it endlessly while the vampires get to keep on sucking everyone dry.

Just wait until the idea catches on over here and marginalized people start taking out innocents based upon decisions they made using information from the largest, most effective propaganda machine in human history.

Oh wait, that's already happening...

The vampires believe in nothing, not even God. They believe they are God.

Your beliefs and values, to them, are exploits to be capitalized upon.

Yes, it's that ugly.