Talk:Suicide attack - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 81.91.192.220 (talk) at 16:51, 17 June 2005 (→At least propose an Edit or Reversion on the Talk Page Please). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:51, 17 June 2005 by 81.91.192.220 (talk) (→At least propose an Edit or Reversion on the Talk Page Please)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Suicide attack received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Old talk on homicide bombing is at talk:homicide bombing
/Temp - edit conflict version moved out of main namespace

Old discussion

I tried to define suicide bombing objectively, as well as to present two of the main ethical appraisals of it. A difficulty in discussing anything to do with "terrorism" is, of course, that many advocates persuasively maintain that their side isn't guilty of terrorism: their targets are legitimate, the women and children aren't innocent, and so forth.

It can be difficult to refute such arguments, while consistently justifying the military bombing of cities in declared war: e.g., Dresden, Hiroshima.

I don't think I have a handle on the issue. I just yearn for a world where no one would ever want to kill anyone!!! Ed Poor

IMHO the specific act of suicide bombing is inherently neither terrorist nor non-terrorist. It is only one tactic among many others. The specific choice of target determines its terrorist nature. Eclecticology This is also follows the definition of terrorism used in the article linked.

I tried to add some reasons to suicide bombings as I don't think "they are Arabs" is enough really :-) It's badly written and probably not NPOV so feel welcome to edit it. Then it struck me, after watching a documentary about firearms in USA, are the suicide massacres in some way similar to suicide bombings? You know where someone shoots 1 - 2 dozen people and then commits suicide before the police comes. Like the Columbine (sp?) Highschool massacre and so on. --BL

I worry about the focus on Islamic or Arab in this article. Even if true (and I am not immediatley convinced it is) I would think that the description should not include ethnic linkages. After the description, a list of groups engaging in suicide bombing (and notes on cynide capisuls), and perhaps a note that most suicide attacts are Arab or Islamic (assuming it's true) with a brief note of explination - such as currently large number of Islamic people feel that their religion, values, and countries are under attack by the west, and are unable to respond in any other way. I note that Islam has very strong prohibitions against suicide, this probably should also be covered. - Karl

The article clearly states that suicide bombing is not accepted by most countries. I am recommending that as an addition, the quote from the Koran on prohibition against suicide also be added. In general, it should be quite clear that suicide bombing is not considered generally acceptable. This too can be stated. It IS important to say why people engange in suicide bombing. Given the rather strong comdemnation of it in the general description, no rebuttal is necessary. If one group is singled out, then the reasons that this group engages in suicide bombing is important. I don't think that the truth of these reasons needs to be debated, rather when listing the reasons, comments like the Palistinian people believe that ... An additional section on the results of suicide bombing, ie escellating violence, terroristic responsees by the victim countries, demonization, evaporation of public support... (again without justifications... with the obvious result of escelating results until someone backs down (Sira Lanka might be a good example here.)Karl

Removed para:

Israel does everything possible only to target known terrorists who happen to also be civilians or to be posing as civilians. An unbaised observer should conclude, based on the record, that Israel does all it can to avoid collateral damage among innocent civilians, a task made near impossible when terrorists use civilians as human shields, invade and take over religious shrines such as the Church of the Nativity, or flee to and hide in densly populated civilian areas while being pursued. The record unfortunately shows, on the other hand, that Palestinian bombers tend to strive to do all they can to seek out maximum casualties among civilians. Reviewing their attacks one finds they prefer crowded buses, shopping or dining areas and other places where one bomb will have maximum killing effect among innocent civilians. This effect is further enhanced by deliberate addition of shrapnel to the bombs, for instance by packing large numbers of nails or other such items around the explosives. Finally they also have been known to arrange for a second bomb timed to go off in the same area when emergency crews have gathered and are working to recover the dead and relive the wounded. Each of these tactics is carefully, deliberately calculated to maximize casualties among civilians.

The above passage needs some serious NPOV work before the few sentences of good, non-redundant material within it can be included back into the article (much of the above is already stated in the article, albeit in a more - yet still not great - NPOV way). --mav

The Japanese kamikaze bombers for example clearly had other alternatives, and were not all that interested in altering the policies of a country in the way suicide bombers from terrorist groups are.

As a general rule, when a writer says something is clearly so, they're usually expressing their own opinion. Otherwise they would provide the fact that they imply is so "clear". To be neutral (or even to make sense), the above comment should indicate what "alternatives" the kamikaze pilots had. (The only thing I can think of is just tolerating failure of their bombing missions due to inability to deliver bombs accurately enough.) --Ed Poor 20:34 Dec 4, 2002 (UTC)

ah - I was under the impression that the japanese were using suicide bombing as a tactic in and of itself, from quite early in the war - before the failure of their bombing missions was so apparent. Similary, they were not doing that badly in the first part of the war, unless of course you are arguing that it was the suicide bombing that caused the japanese success. No matter. The purpose of the sentence was to try to show an example which did not include all the points listed. As opposed to discuss a point in detail. Karl

If an article edit is worth 1,000 comments, I put up Suicide bombing/temp to express my ideas on the current article. DanKeshet 21:21 Dec 4, 2002 (UTC)

Karl, I'm not trying to impose my views. If you have a reason for omitting my 3 paragraphs on military and "irregular" tactics, I'm happy to discuss it here on the talk page. Often when two people edit the same article rapidly, an "edit conflict" and one or both contributors lose their work. I would rather just come back later if you need to have the article to yourself for a while. --Ed Poor

Ed - i like your changes as currently made Karl

Thanks, but I found an even better version by DanKeshet. So I replaced all my work and your work with his version. This will be my last edit for now. I want to let everyone else have a chance, and I don't want anyone to feel I am "imposing" anything. --Ed Poor

it's fine, just as long as middle east warfare stays in other articles. You "imposing" things? Na! Who would ever do such a thing! :) Karl

It's so easy for me to "detect" bias in others, but usually awfully hard to see my own bias. I tend to think I always write neutrally, but several times a week someone has to correct me -- then I see my error. I guess we all have to coach each other. Anyway, I'm giving this article a rest till tomorrow. Come take a look at Palestinian, which I just spent an hour completely re-writing. --Ed Poor

Haven't the article lost alot since a few dozen edits? Like the discussion about the typical suicide bomber, reasons (or theories on) why it exists, countermeasures and so on? And I don't understand why there aren't ANY text related to the Palestinian suicide bombers. It is in Palestine/Israel that most of them occur. Anyway, I'll be back.. in a few days :-) Nice to see Ed too --BL

Oh dear, this is one of the most appallingly biased entries it has been my misfortune to see on Misplaced Pages. After a heavy edit, it's still poor, but improved a little at any rate. I removed this para of Righteous Revenge rhetoric:

The kamikaze attacks against American warships in 1944 and 1945 as Japan was already losing the war, only further antagonized the fighting men of America against the Japanese. American rage and firepower was unleashed onto the Japanese mainland by US bombers in massive fire-raid bombings that killed tens of thousands of Japanese citizens on Japanese soil. And when America finally dropped two atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in September of 1945 there was little mercy felt for the Japanese people because of their attack on America at Pearl Harbor in December 1941and culminating with the futile tactics of kamikazes as they lost the war.

because (a) it's difficult to see how Allied forces could have felt any more rage than they already did after the atrocities of the early part of the war (many of which were only coming to light in 1944/45 as Allied troops occupied areas where the Japanese had been in control - Burma, Phillipines, Borneo, and so on), (b) the bombing of Japan had been planned long before the kamikaze attacks began, and the bombing of Germany (which had nothing to do with kamikaze attacks) was in no way different, (c) because Pearl Harbor is completely irrelevant.

I have not the slightest intention of touching the Israli-Palestinian stuff, nor even of passing an opinion on it. I'll leave that one to those who take an interest in that conflict and are qualified to judge. The final S11 para reeks of righteousness, but I'll leave that one alone too, at least for now.

Tannin 08:55 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

Hey, I deleted "perfidious". :) -- Zoe

I didn't see "perfidious". Guess I was too busy swing that axe. Pity, the word has a nice ring to it. Now, if I could only work out how to get "perfidious" and "recalcitrant" into the same sentence, I'd go into politics. :) Tannin

Why would we bother to have any amateur assessments of its effectiveness? If there's somebody who's done a military study of the circumstances in which it can or has been effective, we should include it, but barring that, I don't see the need for armchair analysis. DanKeshet 16:29 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

"I tried to add some reasons to suicide bombings as I don't think "they are Arabs" is enough really :-) It's badly written and probably not NPOV so feel welcome to edit it. Then it struck me, after watching a documentary about firearms in USA, are the suicide massacres in some way similar to suicide bombings? You know where someone shoots 1 - 2 dozen people and then commits suicide before the police comes. Like the Columbine (sp?) Highschool massacre and so on. --BL"

Though not really a suicide bombing exactly, they both share the same essential feature of a terrorist act performed by a person with no regard to their own safety or future. The absolutely bizzare thing though, and something which really needs to be explained, here or anywhere, is why suicide bombings? If you don't care about living, couldn't you do better by running down the street with a machine gun?

The Eric Rudolph reference fits this article not at all; he obviously lived through it. - Hephaestos 04:23, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Homicide bombing includes both ppl that live through it and those that don't .... (mabey a seperate article for Homicide bombing is needed?) reddi 04:42, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I think another article would be a good idea, yes. - Hephaestos 05:44, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'll try to do it if no one has objection ... unless someone else get the opprotunity before I do ... reddi 07:38, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Neologism

I protected this page due to the edit war. It will remain protected until a consensus is reached on this page. --Jiang 08:01, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Who protected it on Reddi's version? Clearly "suicide bombing" is not an invented term, it's a perfectly ordinary compound use of established words. It just became commonplace in the 1980s because that was when suicide bombings became commonplace. Reddi just wants to equate the terms "suicide bombing" and "homicide bombing" for obvious reasons. --Wik 07:23, Sep 4, 2003 (UTC)

Please look at this link http://www.wordspy.com/words/suicidebomber.asp and the Neologism article ... I'll be moving anymore discussion to Talk:Suicide bombing ... it's not because I want to equate the 2 ... it's is because they are both Neologisms reddi 07:34, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Vote

All right, let's try to have a vote here.

For the description of "suicide bombing" as a "neologism":

(none yet)

Against:

Daniel C. Boyer
Wik
James F.
FearÉIREANN
Daniel Quinlan: not new, and also a really obvious compound word, The Word Spy - suicide bomber

For using facts instead of votes for aticle information

reddi

Wik ... what is this vote for? the definiton of what is a neologism? I think the neologism article say that ... and suicide bombing has only been around for 20 years (the neologisms of videotape is about as old and radar is alot older) ... a vote isn't gonna change facts (unless that's how wiki handles things like this ... changing facts to fit votes) .... reddi

It's you who's not listening to facts. The neologism article says a neologism is an invented word. "Suicide bombing" didn't need to be invented. The meaning doesn't need explanation. If many people were suddenly to start having elephants as pets, the term "pet elephant" would naturally "appear" (in the same way "suicide bombing" "appeared" in the 1980s); it wouldn't be a neologism. And of course it's impossible to prove when such a term was first used. So your 1981 citation is only the first use known to the WordSpy site, but it's very unlikely that it was in fact the first time anyone used it.

The vote is to solve the matter by a majority decision. Then the one who still goes against it should be regarded as a vandal with all that might entail. Otherwise this edit war will just go on forever. (I thought your vote was obvious, but if you don't want to participate, that's fine, you'll still have to accept the result.) --Wik 08:03, Sep 4, 2003 (UTC)

I just searched the New York Times archives and found this reference from 1960: "It turned out that the heavily insured man who is suspected of a suicide bombing of an airliner was a young man in trouble. At the time of his death, Julian Andrew Frank, one of thirty-four victims, was entangled in a web of complicated financial deals and was facing charges in some of them." (NYT, January 16, 1960, p. 23). --Wik 08:26, Sep 4, 2003 (UTC)

still a neologism ... radar is older (WWII) and it's still a neologism reddi (can't change the fact that it's a neologism)

BTW ... got a link to that? I'd like to read the article .... (see the link on homicide bombing history ... that may have been taken out of context (or homicide bombing can date back to the 1970s (IIRC)))

"Radar" will always remain a neologism because it was invented. "Suicide bombing" wasn't, neither in 1981 nor in 1960, it didn't need to. Can't give you a link as the archives aren't freely available. But I copied the entire text (it was part of a news summary). --Wik 08:47, Sep 4, 2003 (UTC)

It's me who's not listening to facts? oh ok ... attack me and not the particulars of the discussion .... The neologism article says a neologism is an invented word. "Suicide bombing" was invented (about 20yrs ago).

The meaning does need explanation. (all word have to be explained at one tiome or anouther ... also words change meaning over time (like conservative had a opposite meaning than it does today 100yrs ago)).

... naturally "appear" (in the same way "suicide bombing" "appeared" in the 1980s); it wouldn't be a neologism? ... I think i see what you are saying... that suicide bombing is just a compound ... but that same logic can be applied to homicide bombing (i.e., homicide bombing id 2 distinct parts of a phrase) ...

It's impossible to prove when such a term was first used? no ... really ... the proof is in the citation that it is first recorded ... sure it could have been used causally, but it's not the intent (just like homicide bombing was used in 1979 (and probably way before too), but it's implication was not fully fashioned till the late 1990s).

... citations are the only way to really now the first use occured ...

solve the matter by a majority decision? so change fact to fit votes? that's not too accurate ...

edit war will just go on forever? ummm ... isn't there another way to go about it? there has to be another way ... mabey ppl should edit toward something and not away from something (like putting info in and not taking it out ... it's that a wikitip when you become an editor, i thought i saw that somewhere? ...)

reddi 08:27, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

By definition, every word was a neologism at some time. Shakespeare invented more than a few words that are still used in English today; it's kind of silly (and inflammatory) to go around calling words and phrases neologisms. Even when you discuss the origin of the phrase, you don't need to use the word "neologism". Come on, Reddi: is this article about the phrase "suicide bomber" or is it about suicide bombers? -- Cyan 09:02, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I have reverted the page to the last version before the edit war started. This is fair to both parties and can be easily undone once a consensus solution emerges. I strongly advise sysops against tinkering with this page until that time. Thrash it out here on the talk page, make a /temp page to work out a suitable formulation, whatever. But we should not be editing protected pages.

please revert the page to a version that has some information (as that version is really low on content) ... or atleast just take out the neologism parts ... as that version is ancient and leaves alot of inforamtion out ....

could soneone make a /temp page? I'd like to work to get the information out ... and get to (what I hope) a compromise (somehow). reddi 08:27, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Reddi says (on my talk page) Ummm ... the last page before the edit war on suicide bombing was by Hephaestos. I considered using that as my even-handed revert point, Reddi, particularly as Hephaestos is a very well-respected contributor with a great deal of experience. However, the page history shows a great many edits by you and by Wik in the few days prior to Hephaestos' edit also, so to make sure that I was not favouring either one of you, I went back a little further, to mid-May and The Cunctator's edit (i.e., before you and Wik became involved.) It is possible that one of the immediately following edits would have done equally well. The main thing was to make sure that the temporary version did not favour you and did not favour Wik. The sooner you, Wik, and the Misplaced Pages community negotiate a sensible wording, the sooner we get rid of the locked temp page and get back to improving the 'pedia. (Naturally, I do not intend to become involved in this dispute myself, save as an umpire trying to ensure fair play.) Tannin 08:20, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

For Reddi (and for interested others too, of course) I've made a page at Suicide bombing/Temp that is not protected and includes three or four different versions of the article. (Get to whichever one you want through the page history.) That would be a good place to work out the final shape of the article. Remember that the wiki way is based on consensus, on persuading people that your idea is a good one, and on being able to listen to other points of view. Be sure to play nice, as we don't want to have to protect the temp page as well! Tannin 11:22, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Proposal and rationale

The purpose of using "neologism" to describe either term is a fairly transparent attempt to insert POV by disparaging the term for its newness; "well, somebody just made that up!" To achieve NPOV, I think this article needs to leave the idea of "neologism" alone completely.

If the purpose of using "neologism" is to describe either term is an attempt to insert POV, I would suppory leaving the "neologism" out. If the purpose of using "neologism" is to describe the terms as constructed words, it should be used for all the terms. (personally I don't mind neologisms, thay are useful and helpful ... it's what make the english language rich and dynamic IMO ...)

I did some Googling today, and came up with some interesting results. The web at large would appear clearly to prefer the term "suicide bombing" to "homicide bombing" (which I admit didn't surprise me at all):

Googling results

Googling with some different results to give a bit different perspective.

As note to the preferences of the web the term "suicide bombing" to "homicide bombing" primarily because "suicide bombing" is alot older than "homicide bombing" (as far as I can tell; early 1980s vs late 1990s).

"suicide bombing"   results:195,000
"homicide bombing"  results:  3,390

without the ""

suicide bombing 529,000

homicide bombing 40,500

What I did find surprising was that, after looking some more, it appears that the term is not preferred by the U.S. Government...

The U.S. Government has preferred the term since only after the last few years (4 yrs?; atleast since the war on terror started)

"suicide bombing" site:gov  results:  1,130
"homicide bombing" site:gov  results:    55

without the ""

suicide bombing 3,110

homicide bombing 869

...nor by Israelis...

"suicide bombing" site:il    results:3,320
"homicide bombing" site:il   results:  106

without the ""

suicide bombing 4,710

homicide bombing 208

...nor even by Fox news.

"suicide bombing" site:foxnews.com   results:285
"homicide bombing" site:foxnews.com  results:118

without the ""

suicide bombing 586

homicide bombing 277

In light of this, our article here looks really skewed with regard to reality. What I would do, therefore, is replace the entire section currently titled "Neologism" (which, as I mentioned, is POV in itself) and replace it with one paragraph, of two sentences, briefly explaining "homicide bombing" and "martyrdom operation" (which got 3,620 web hits overall; with such a low figure I doubt it's any more common than "homicide bombing"). - Hephaestos 22:52, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Skewed view?

The article expresses valid concepts ... I wouldn't say it's skewed (YMMV on that though) ... each of the three are valid topics that are used by ppl (one an older western view, one a newer western view, and the last one a non-western view).

Replace the entire section currently titled "Neologism"?

How about splitting off the article portions? (as was mentioned in previously in talk)

... Each of the terms in the section currently titled "Neologism" could be a article unto themselves .... and a compare with wikilink could be provided on each (of the thre concepts) to contrast/compare them ... (this would also (IMO) be a editing toward a goal of provideing information and not taking away from existing information)

This could also prevent conflicting information on each concept .... and clarify each concept a bit better ... reddi 20:45, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Human bomb

Whenever I read Arab newspapers in English, they use the phrase "human bomb" (by analogy with "car bomb", "truck bomb", or "mail bomb"). Although I can't currently find it in any Arab papers, Here is Benazir Bhutto using it in The Indian Express. DanKeshet 05:37, Sep 6, 2003 (UTC)

www.arabnews.com, which I think is the leading english language Arab news site, uses "suicide bomber" exclusively. -BuddhaInside

The arabnews website search finds 20 articles that use "suicide bomber", and four that use "human bomb" (well, five, but that last one is talking metaphorically about Korean soccer player Cha Du-ri's skills on the field). Leaving out opinion/editorial articles, the count is twelve for "suicide bomber", two for "human bomb". -- Cyan 02:35, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I should add, then, that my previous statement was based on two Google searchs. Googling for "suicide bomber" on arabnew.com site yields 263 hits, while Googling for "human bomb" on arabnew.com site yields zero. -BuddhaInside

OK, it's been a couple of weeks. I've unprotected the page. We can sit back and see what happens. If a major edit war breaks out, then it might have to be protected again.

Note that the current revision is an old revision. Be sure to read the edit history before making major changes. Tannin

Some economists suggest that this tactic goes beyond symbolism and is actually a response to commodified or controlled or devalued lives, and consider family prestige and financial compensation from the community to compensate for their own life.

This is an interesting argument. Does anyone have citation for it? -- Pde 01:11, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Ed Poor changed the definition to:

A suicide bombing or human bomb is an intentional attack on people or property with explosives, delivered in such a way that the attacker knows he will die (see suicide, compare homicide bombing)

Your revised definition now includes things which do not fit the usual conotations of suicide bombing. For example, a soldier in a hopeless position in combat throwing a grenade rather than surrendering.

I also must confess that I don't understand why you want to place the link to homicide bombing in the first paragraph. While relevant somewhere in the article, it sheds no light on the definition of the concept at hand.

-- Pde 14:08, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

"delivered by a person who knows the attack will cause his own death" seems to get round the 'last ditch grenade attack' case - unless the solider deliberately includes himself in the grenade's casualties, in whcih case I would say it is a suicide bombing - although not the usual kind. 207.236.234.180 19:51, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Pde, maybe we should add something like the following to the article:

Often such attacks are planned long in advance, to achieve specific political or military goals.

Other such attacks are sometimes planned on short notice, as in response to a sudden shocking event, as dramatized in a movie which portrayed a victim of rape by Japanese soldiers who strapped a hand grenade to her abdomen and approached a group of unsuspecting Japanese soldiers (a "revenge attack"). Or the commonplace "they'll never take me alive" approach of a soldier who detonates a hand grenade to avoid capture, a sort of "human [[self-destruct mechanism".

What various parties call it

Arab press : human bomb
Bush's press secretary : "homicide bombing"

--Uncle Ed 13:31, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Nicely phrased, Uncle Ed. Tannin 13:58, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The header section is now fine. DJ Clayworth 14:07, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

What various parties call it? the Isrealis widely call it Homocide bombing (though the individual doesn't live through it). Do a search on HB and most of the recent news article references are by istealis. Giving the arab view without the isreali view seems kinda a POV. reddi 00:51, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Okay, then how's this?

Arab press : human bomb
Bush & Israeli press : "homicide bombing"

--Uncle Ed 19:27, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

That's be OK .... but the full tale is ...

- Arab press : human bomb

- Bush administration, some American media outlets, & the Israeli press : "homicide bombing"

- Some other American media outlets & European press: Suicide bombing

May I posit that some of the old information get copied out of the moved to temp page get reinserted too (I'm not gonna edit it, but somone may find some good info in the old article) reddi 19:48, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Oh, right. I was only listing the alternates. The Western media have pretty much settled on suicide bombing as a term. Now we can move on to the moral/ethical issue... --Uncle Ed 19:55, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I put a link in ... but didn't edit the news ref part, Western media have pretty much settled on suicide bombing as a term for bombers that kill themselves with the bomb, but it'd be fair to mention what the isrealis call it (especially since that what's mostly happening to them) ... the ones that do this want to call it something entirely differently ... reddi 20:09, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I hate to get picky, just when we were becoming such good friends, but:

human bomb is a person who carries out a suicide bombing attack
suicide bombing is the action (the attack itself)

One term refers to the person, the other to his action. (Just a little point of English grammar) --Uncle Ed 20:42, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Innocent Israelis

Re:

attempted to kill innocent Israelis using suicide bombers

Are we all agreed that the Israeli civilians whom Palestinian Arabs kill via suicide bombing are "innocent"? I daresay some pro-Arab writers believe that the targets of suicide bombings are not always "innocent" -- that's just their POV, of course, just as mine is that the civilians are "innocent" -- but it's still POV I figure.

Maybe we should use a different word. --Uncle Ed 22:38, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

In the killer's POV the victims are alway were a legitimate target and deserve to die. You may add that "pro-Palestinian writers argue the suicide bombings against Israeli civilians are justified because..." but I think we all agree than a 2-months old baby dining in a restaurant with her parents, or an old men sitting ob a bus, are innocent. MathKnight 21:45, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

For the record, I found an earlier usage of the phrase "suicide bomber". The Times (London) of April 15, 1947, page 2, refers to a new pilotless, radio-controlled rocket missile thus: ' Designed originally as a counter-measure to the Japanese "suicide-bomber," it is now a potent weapon for defence or offence '. The quotes are in the original and suggest that the phrase was an existing one. An earlier article (Aug 21, 1945, page 6) refers to a kamikaze plane as a "suicide-bomb". --zero 23:48, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

9/11

Do the 9/11 attacks really warrant a mention in this article? Strictly speaking, they don't fit the article's own definition of a suicide bombing, although there are some superficial resemblances. - Seth Ilys 20:52, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Then again, maybe I should have read the debate over the definition more thoroughly... - Seth Ilys

Following material moved from Misplaced Pages:Peer review by Wapcaplet 22:59, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Homicide bombing

It contains a lot of information POV'ed info (when Wik reverts it), ignoring other factual part of the term. It leaves out information which is not particularly difficult to verify. It is being reverted constantly by Wik who is known to write POV'ed on this topic. I have strived to include the comments by him, but to no avail, could someone please peer review the article (and check the history and the talk pages) reddi 01:34, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

A strange reversal of the facts. I describe "homicide bombing" correctly as a POV term for suicide bombing, while Reddi describes it as if it were an objective term (and earlier tried to call "suicide bombing" a "neologism", which already led the suicide bombing article to be protected). His persistent POV editing (also in Current events) amounts to vandalism in my opinion. Any sysop reading this, please protect Homicide bombing. I guess both pages will just have to be protected until Reddi either agrees to change his behaviour or is banned. --Wik 01:44, Sep 26, 2003 (UTC)

From a strictly semantic point of view, I think that suicide bombing is the correct term. Any bombing of the more conventional types - i.e. shelling and airstrikes - can be termed a homicide if the speaker is a sufficiently outspoken pacifist. The word suicide, on the other hand, uniquely identifies it as an act of utter desperation, to which people resort when the steady barrage of ostensibly religious propaganda turns people into driver ants. (Well, maybe it doesn't have quite that much meaning, but I hope you'll excuse my fit of eloquence.) -Smack 05:13, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I agree; homicide is usually referred to an act in which one kills someone else. When someone kills someone and then takes their own life, I have never heard of it being called a double murder but always as a murder-suicide. Thus the act of using explosives as an attack which the person delivering them knows that they will die in doing so, would be correctly identified as a suicide bombing not as a homicide bombing. Paul --Rfc1394 00:43, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

End of moved material

Accurate explaination removed

Wik continues to remove the accurate explianation of homicide bombing.

The term was established by White House spokesman Ari Fleischer in April 2002. The White House Press Secretary used the term to state:

"A bombing that intentionally kills another person; a suicide bombing in which the bomber's intent is to kill other people".

The use of the term is not as common as that of suicide bombing, although FOX News and the New York Post, among others, have adopted its use.

JDR 20:07, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Protected

Saying rv for already stated reasons doesn't tell us why you reverted this, Wik. If you don't give an explanation, it looks like you're censoring the article.

That's the kind of behavior that makes people want to ban you. Please stop it. --Uncle Ed 21:21, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What's happening now? Why is the article protected? -- Taku 19:29, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

Because Reddi keeps trying to insert his WordSpy quote in an attempt to give legitimacy to the term "homicide bombing" (as if WordSpy were some kind of authority). --Wik 19:34, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

Who then is an authority on the questions? Kingturtle 19:38, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Any well-known dictionary. And they won't have this term, because it never caught on and therefore does not need any further description than that which is already in the article. --Wik 19:43, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

This term is legitimate and is used (read as "caught on") by some (including some conservative press outlets) ... it is factual ... and does need further description (than what is in the article; the article does not explain it as it should) AND I'm not the only one that is inserting this FACTUAL information (for context and clarification) ... also, see the Ari Fleischer article. JDR 20:06, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC) (I'd not be surprised if Wik rv's the Fleischer article, also)

A google search for "homicide bombing" retrieves 3,800+ results. White House press secretary Ari Fleischer used the term in 2002 . Fox News uses the term a decent amount. So the term has caught on enough to justify appearing in this article, no? Kingturtle 20:07, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Appearing, yes, but no more than it is in my revision. --Wik 20:28, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

Wik. you just said "because it never caught on and therefore does not need any further description".....now you acknowledge that it caught on enough. So you should also acknowledge that it DOES need further description in this article. Kingturtle 20:31, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. A brief mention is more than enough. It has not caught on in the mainstream, it is only used by some who want to push a certain POV. --Wik 20:38, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

Your rm of the factual explaination is to push your POV. JDR

Wik, then mention should be made of the term, and mention should be made of what POV is being represented when the term is used. Misplaced Pages should educate its readers. A reader should get to read about other POVs and what words are associated with them. Kingturtle 20:50, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by "his WordSpy quote in an attempt to give legitimacy to the term "homicide bombing"". Quoting shows such a usage, if completely POV'd and only shows it. We are not interested in homicide is a POV'd term or not. I agree with you that it is not a legimate usage. It's POV and actually almost no one uses it. But the trouble is that some people use it, probably falsely and, as wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we cannot help not mentioning it.

An interesting example. According to the Japanese government, Sino-Japanese War was not a war but a regional conflict. Therefore, the US has no right to intervent. Well, again they are wrong for sure but we must mention it as some political authority claimed such.

I think this is good that you started talking, instead of acting like you have some authority. What I disagree and only what I disagree is an edit war. You cannot just revert disputed edits with saying nothing. This is not about a neologim homicide bombing but the way the article is edited. -- Taku 20:51, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

For crying out loud, there are already two paragraphs about this in the article. The WordSpy quote adds nothing useful to that. --Wik 21:27, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

Indeed the mention of homicide bombing is lengthly pointlessly. I have posted a new version Suicide_bombing/Temp1 with a briefer mention. My points are simply:

1. Make context clear; for instance, no one considers kamikaze as anything but suicidal. 2. Given this context, why those people come up with a different phrase.

NPOV means we must not take a side. I don't know if people like this but hope you don't get an impression the quote in this version attempts to give legitimacy to the term "homicide bombing", because no one in wikipedia wants to attempt to give legitimacy to the term "homicide bombing". -- Taku 22:24, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

Hmm...doesnt NPOV mean that no one in wikipedia wants to attempt to give legitimacy to the term "homicide bombing" is not important...that NPOV means that the opinions and desires of the people writing wikipedia are not reflected the content of the articles? OneVoice 22:37, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, I would have said:

no one in wikipedia wants to attempt to give legitimacy to the term "homicide bombing" in writing this article.

It's the US government who wants to do that not we in writing NPOV articles. This is subtle but I think extremely important. We still want to let the articles reflect opinions or desires of those writing the articles and those not. But we want to do this in a manner of NPOV. Eliminating the representation of POV is highly POV. -- Taku 22:43, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

"Eliminating the representation of POV is highly POV."....doesnt this mean that we should cite sources and note who uses which terms? Do I misunderstand your statement? OneVoice 22:52, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That's my point. I guess we are not communicating right. What kind of my wording gave you an impression I am against citing sources? I think quoting is important and my new revised version has one. Suicide_bombing/Temp1. Do you agree with this or not? What's bothering you?? -- Taku 02:30, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)

Your version claims the quote is from Fleischer. It isn't. It's from WordSpy. --Wik 02:35, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)

So are you saying Fleischer didn't make that statement quoted in the article? -- Taku 04:45, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)

Wik is obviously correct. A quotation should not be put into the mouth of someone who didn't make it. The words quoted here are from WordSpy and not from Fleischer. Taku, your edition is wrong. Just read the link carefully. --Zero 06:48, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Incorrect. http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/04/12/Bush.mideast.reax/

"The president condemns this morning's homicide bombing in Jerusalem," White House press secretary Ari Fleischer told reporters.

I think that settles the quesion of whether or not wordspy is accurate. →Raul654 06:53, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)

You are missing the point. The problem is that the text is written as if the words in quotation marks are a direct quotation from Fleischer. As Wik keeps saying correctly, they are actually a direct quotation from WordSpy. If you don't intend to give a false impression about where the words come from, you need to rephrase the text to correct that impression. As far as I can see, that is the only issue. Maybe you are not realising that the grammar of the text implies that Fleischer used the actual words "A bombing that intentionally kills an...". Nobody questions that Fleischer used the words "homicide bombing". --Zero 07:10, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Opps, I thought the quote was stated by the white house spokesman. So I corrected the article. Now it shouldn't give such an impression. By the way, a temporary version is not my edition or my version. So never hesitate make your edits too. -- Taku 07:46, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)

I did not hesitate making edits (after reading your comment here) ... comments on it are welcomed. JDR

House demolitions

This probably deserves a separate article (which I fully expect will be bait for an edit war, sadly), but it should probably be noted somewhere that the Israelis are not the first to use house demolitions as a means of reprisal; They learned it from British forces during the Mandate, who used it on Arabs and Jews after attacks (by each side respectively). The British, in fact, went so far as to demolish much of Jenin in 1938 in reprisal for an Arab attack. -Penta 07:18, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Palestinian Authority involvement

Any evidence to back up the insinuation that the Palestinian Authority themselves directly support suicide bombers financially? --Admbws 14:26, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Egyptian government involvement

"The Egyptian goverment fully supports these suicide bombing attacks, as reflected in an editorial in the Egyptian government daily newspaper Al-Masaa on 6 February 2004:

We have no argument regarding the question of the legitimacy of these operations, because they are considered a powerful weapon used by the Palestinians against an enemy with no morality or religion...Even if during civilians or children are killed – the blame does not fall upon the Palestinians, but on those who forced them to turn to this modus operandi.

Ultimately, we should bless every Palestinian man or woman who goes calmly to carry out a martyrdom operation, in order to receive a reward in the Hereafter, sacrificing her life for her religion and her homeland and knowing that she will never return from this operation. "

Wouldn't this be a violation of the Camp David accords? WhisperToMe 01:36, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I removed the phrase. I think that it is being put out of context, anyways. Why would they violate Camp David? Would Israel stand for that? WhisperToMe 22:10, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Rules of war

While there may be a statistical correlation between attacks on civilians and suicide bombers (although I do not see any evidence for this) there is no necessary connection. There are plenty of examples of conventional forces attacking civilian populations in recent history, with little sanction from superiors. Troll Silent, Troll Deep 04:14, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, the difference is that attacks directly on civilians are usually discouraged by conventional forces, and encouraged by those who sponsor/support suicide bombings. Meelar 04:18, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

P.S. Might I suggest a change of username? The current one might make some users think you were an Internet troll.

Thanks! This is what Jimbo Wales had to say about the matter, for what it's worth - "Well, clearly a person might innocently and with no harmful intentions have a username which happens to contain the word 'troll', which is after all a perfectly normal word which has been hijacked by contemporary Internet slang. So clearly, a policy which says that people should be quickbanned just for that would be misguided at best". I'll stick with my name, thanks. Now, back to the point. Wait a minute. Wasn't there a word for people who keep trying to distract us from the point? Ah yes. Suicide bombing. Not usernames at all. Troll Silent, Troll Deep 04:22, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Generally discouraged by conventional forces? I'm not sure that's really true, or that it's generally true of those who support suicide bombing. For example, Japanese Kamikazee bombers attacked US military targets, while the US (who did not generally use suicide bombers) destroyed at least two whole cities of Japanese civilians. Of course, there is Vietnam as well, there is a lot of evidence to suggest relatively wide use of attacks on civilians by US forces, while Viet Cong never to my knowledge attacked US civilians on a large scale. Can you substantiate your claims? Thanks, Troll Silent, Troll Deep 04:25, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

That's flamebait if I've ever heard it. →Raul654 04:28, May 4, 2004 (UTC)

Really? It seemed to me that a blatently POV statement equating suicide bombing with attacks on civilians was being proposed without any evidence. Troll Silent, Troll Deep 04:29, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Hmm...but surely our Trolly friend is correct. Conventional, non-suicidal, military forces have frequently engaged in attacks on civilians. To move it away from US bashing, we can note the activities of the Wehrmacht in the Soviet Union. And the Japanese kamikaze are certainly examples of suicide attackers who attacked military targets. There is no necessary correlation involved here. john 07:06, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

The final sentence in his change is inaccurate based on videotapes of suicide bombers before the act. I've made a slight change to reflect that fact. - Tεx τ urε 19:26, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

"mainly arabic"? Indian suicide bomber groups have been encouraging it for years. - Tεx τ urε 19:46, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, do you want to specify? I am trying to make the distinction that this has not, historically, been the case - what do you suggest? Troll Silent, Troll Deep 19:48, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Are you looking for examples of Indian suicide bombings? I don't have access atm to any references but there are some very famous ones that resulted in some good movies coming out of India. Check out the movie "Dil-Se" sometime. It is based on a true story. (But be prepared for the hokey Indian-style intermission dancing and singing.) - Tεx τ urε 19:55, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Also - this gives the impression that conventional forces do not engage in this, which I still dispute. Troll Silent, Troll Deep 19:49, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Actually, your recent changes do indicate that conventional forces are not exempt from these activities. I think that is sufficient since this is not about conventional forces and that inclusion of your first sentence changes no longer gives the wrong impression. - Tεx τ urε 19:55, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

OK. Troll Silent, Troll Deep 19:56, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

homicide bombing

May I point out, regarding the "suicide/homicide" bombing dispute that the latter term is, to the best of my knowledge, unheard of outside the United States. In fact, this article is the first reference to it that I can recall. To someone outside the U.S. and not especially familiar with U.S. media or politic life, the term "homicide bombing" seems to suggest a bombing which causes actual loss of life (not necessarily intentional, otherwise one would call it "murder bombing"), rather than merely destroying property or intended as a display of force. In any case, it completely obviates the main characteristic that differentiates a suicide bombing from other forms of delivering the ordnance.

On learning its intended use as a synonim for "suicide bombing", one wonders why should someone feel the need to invent a new term, let alone one which is inadequate for the reasons given above, for something one already has a name for.

On a different topic, the article seems to be seriously lacking in references to back any of the various assertions made in it, especially regarding the "motivations" of the persons involved. In particular, it implies that in general the suiciders follow personal moral or religious convictions and carry out their operations out of their own free will. My understanding from conversations with security personnel knowledgeable about the subject is that, at least in some operations, their actors are recruited by way of threats and blackmail, counterbalanced by the promise of looking after their families.

Also, the assertion that Arab newspapers use the expression "human bomb" any less infrequently than other media is generally wrong, as can be verified by reading or searching their websites. Of the news outlets I'm familiar with, only the English version of Al-Jazeera (which in recent years has discovered and actively exploited the potential of sensationalism) appears to use "human bomb" with any regularity (23 Google hits for "human bomber" site:aljazeera.net, against 23 for "suicide bomber" site:aljazeera.net--although a number of the latter were quotations). Other mainstream Arab media, such as Arab News (same owner as British newspaper Sharqat Al-Awsat) and Gulf News, use "suicide bomber". Note the correlation in the use of non-standard terms by sensationalist media both in the Middle East (Al-Jazeera) and North America (FOX News, as earlier mentioned by another contributor).

Lastly, in the list of countries where suicide bombings (does that preclude other forms of suicide attacks, btw?) have taken place, the United States only appears at the end of the list, between parentheses, in spite of it being the place where the most damaging suicide bombing in history has taken place. Shouldn't it be listed alongside all the other countries?

I think the "homicide bomb" term was created by the Israelis and is commonly used by Israeli politicians - more so than American ones. It was obviously chosen for political reasons -- to make the suicide bombers seem more distasteful, in response to Palestinian claims of their heroism and glorification of their deeds. Of course, it's a failure with those audiences rhetorically, and most of the rest of the world asks the legitimate question of the poster above -- why come up with another term which is so obviously redundant and ignores the one thing that makes this kind of bombing different from ordinary (homicide) bombs. The "human bomb" designation was used in a poem called "I am your human bomb" but remember this stuff is translated from Arabic so I don't know whether that is an accurate translation. Nonetheless "human bomb" is obviously more specific than "homicide bomb." --csloat 02:19, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Tamil Tigers

Why is so little said about the Tamil Tigers? They are credited with over 200 suicide bomb attacks since 1987. Compared with the number of attacks commited by Islamic Extremist groups which are credited with less than 100. That's a big difference, over 200 attacks from a single organization against less than 100 attacks across several organizations. --Omar 10:30, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Usage and related-terms

What in this section is factually disputed ? Lets fix it or remove the marker. Lance6Wins 16:56, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

History

there should be a reference to Samson as the earliest testimony of a suicide attack. Winkelried may also qualify for the history section. dab 11:42, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

Yeah, the opening paragraph doesn't seem like a NPOV to me. Phrases like "many Muslims", "Many in the Muslim world" seem to be statements plucked out of thin air, and "Martydom Operation"? Thats straight from the Hamas PR handbook! "Western term" is horribly vague and sloppy, not like an encyclopedia article. Also, would it not be appropriate to link Iraq and Palestine? Mrfixter 17:40, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Link in United States as well. 19 suicide bombers on 4 airplanes killing thousands of people seems to be an event that should not be dismissed. Lance6Wins 19:50, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be anybody reading this page, or maybe people don't care. I would like to change the introduction, but am wary due to edit wars on other pages that have the words "Israeli" and/or "Palestinian"" on them. Mrfixter 00:15, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think this article might be too biased towards talking about muslim suicide bombers, especially if what the article says is true about the tamil tigers.

However, the most important thing I thing needs to be in this article is a discussion of why suicide bombing? Why suicide bomb instead of like suicide strafing with gunfire? In essence to me, I think bombing is very inneffective. I have never seen why explained anywhere, but my best guess is that the bomber wants to both die quickly so there is no second thoughts, and also to avoid being captured and some how converted or straying away from the right religious way, so that the reward of heaven is for naught.

I tried to fix the opening paragraph giving both sides good footing. While I prefer the pre-Nov 2nd version... I think this version could be more agreeable to both sides. Tell me what you think. 07:57, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Suicide "bombing" or "attack"

I think this article should be moved to Suicide attack. A suicide bombing is one kind of suicide attack. The article discusses suicide attacks of the Knights Templar and the September 11 pilots, neither of whom had bombs. – Quadell 18:37, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

In general I think you're right. However, this article should probably also be re-organized somewhat into different types of attacks. Also, it really focuses on Suicide bombings, not other things. Perhaps the non-bomb stuff should be in Suicide attacks, and it should point to this article for the stuff on Suicide bombings. Jayjg | (Talk) 19:16, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That sounds like a sensible idea. So, who's up to it? – Quadell 19:49, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

Was that an invitation to me? Or did you want to work on it together? Jayjg | (Talk) 01:23, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

bad example

"when the Netherlands Lt. Jan van Speijk detonated his own ship in the harbour of Antwerp to prevent being captured by Belgians."

self-destructing/scuttling your ship to prevent capture is not suicide bombing. Suicide bombing is meant to kill "the enemy" as well. - Omegatron 18:20, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

Clear Bias. BTW, a 'Shahid' is not a "Suicide bomber". Shahids have existed in Arabian Culture for Millenia's, suicide bombs have not. --Irishpunktom\

Millennia (with a second n, btw) is already plural. If you don't know English stop commenting on an English encyclopedia.

Typo's happen.. you should learn to deal with it. --Irishpunktom\

Explain. A Shahid is not a suicide bomber (nor is a fruit an orange), but suicide bombers are often considered shahids (as oranges are fruits). Also, if you want to place a disputed tag, please explain in detail. And finally, at Misplaced Pages, we traditionally use the description field (both for deleting whole sentences and for adding tags), instead of leaving it blank and marking edits as minor. I see from your history you've been told this before -- please keep it in mind. Mikeage 14:15, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

"Palestinian television has aired a number of music videos and announcements that promote eternal reward for children who seek "martyrdom"", this is probably true. However, none of the examples shown in the source given tell children to become Suicide Bombers, or even mention it. Muhammad Al Dura, being the only actual Shahid named, is the only example of a shahid that Palestinian Television is promoting to Children. Thus, rather than promoting Suicide Bombing, it is promoting the idea that Children who are killed in the conflict are Martyrs, and as such it is not relevent to this page, but rather the Shahid page. For what it's worth, Irish Television similarly promotes Child Martyrs to children, for example Kevin Barry. --Irishpunktom\ 16:48, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Seeking martyrdom is an active process; the examples do not say "if you happen to get killed you will be a shaheed", but instead that they should seek out that state. Your apologetic for this is disingenuous. Jayjg 18:07, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

The whole point of this practice is to encourage children, not to order them around. No, they do not say "go out and become a shahid." "Who will rid me of this meddlesome (or turbulent) priest?" was not a command either -- but it was clear enough in it's time. Tom, unless you can explain how these videos can be taken to be anything besides what Jayjg says, I fail to see how your argument is valid. I do, however, agree that it should be noted on the Shahid page as well. As Jayjg writes, seeking implies an active role in the process. Mikeage 18:05, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, I resent you taking the "Jayjg Approach" (That is claiming edits and arguments you disagree with are not "valid").

Please avoid personal attacks. Jayjg 17:15, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Please do not edit my comments. If I put it on the same level as Jayjg's comment, it's because I was also responding to you, not to him. Furthermore, although I'm not in the mood to wikify it, No Personal atacks. Finally, the reason I said that I consider your argument invalid is that I did not think you made logically valid argument. Notice I'm attacking your argument, not you. Mikeage 10:11, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Err... I didn't edit your comments. --Irishpunktom\

On your edit on 11:06, 30 May 2005, you'd added a colon to the beginning of my comments. If it was accidental, I apologize for accusing you. Mikeage 13:15, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Looking at the edit History, I see whatcha mean. Sorry about that, it wasn't intended. --Irishpunktom\ 13:20, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Secondly, to understand the Concept of Shahid in Palestine, you need to understand the concept of Shahid in the greater Arab, and indeed Muslim world. Altough from a Shia perspective this is worth reading. The Hadith of Bukhari states that the Muslim Prophet Muhammad said there are five types of Martyr (Shahid) - One who dies in a plague, one who dies of intestinal ailments, one who dies of drowning, one who dies under a collapsed building, and one who dies as a martyr in jihad. Another quoted hadee is “Whoever dies while defending his own possessions is a martyr; whoever dies defending his own person is a martyr; whoever dies guarding his own faith is a martyr; whoever dies fighting in order to defend his own family is also a martyr.” "Seeking Martyrdom", from the onset of Islam to the present day, has always meant a willingness to die for religion, Family, etc. Shahid is a Popular name for that reason. It does not mean to go out and inflict death upon yourself.. something which Islam dictates will leave you chocking on the ashes of the fires in Hell. --Irishpunktom\ 09:06, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Your original research is fascinating, but doesn't seem relevant to the properly referenced information in the article which shows the PA encouraging children to seek martyrdom. Jayjg 17:15, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Its hardly original Research, and is relelvent to the concept of Martyrdom in the Wider Islamic World. --Irishpunktom\ 08:24, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

O.K., you can think it's not original research if you want. In any event, this article isn't about "the concept of Martyrdom in the Wider Islamic World", so please stop removing the properly sourced and relevant material showing the P.A. encouraging children to become martyrs. Jayjg 15:53, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

If you want to talk about the Palestinian Media encouraging Shahid (Whats the First Pillar of Islam, transliterated?) then talk about it in the Shahid Article, bringing it up in the Suicide Bombing section is disingenuous. --Irishpunktom\ 08:20, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the article is talking about officialy Palestinian media inciting children to become martyrs; as such it belongs here. Jayjg 15:13, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is not the first time you have tried to remove this information Tom; back in March your complaint was about the specific wording:. Are you going to keep trying out different reasons to remove the information until you find one that sticks? Jayjg 15:25, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Colour me surprised, a personal and ignorant attack by Jayjg .

Tom, please refrain from personal attacks, and please sign your contributions. Thanks. Jayjg 18:07, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

suicide bombing and/or terrorism

I know i'm stepping in here kind of late in a process, but it seems to me that this article on suicide bombing is sort of heavily mixed up with terrorism, presumably due to the comingling of both concepts in the present. But historically, suicide bombing of a civilian cafe has less in common with Kamikaze than it has with a remote detonated car bomb outside the cafe. Yes? No? So comments re the Palestinians' lack of other military alternatives belong here, but discussions of civilian targets are more of a terrorist matter. ?? Gzuckier 19:49, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There was a suggestion on the Talk: page a few months ago to separate out Suicide Bombing from Suicide Attack, which seemed to make sense at the time, but it never went anywhere. Jayjg 20:55, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

POV Edits

Although Yuber should be removed from Wiki as a harmful vandal, at SlimVirgin's request, his most recent POV edit will be discussed here. Here is Yuber's POV insertion and why it should be deleted:

1. However, while Palestinian television has aired a number of music videos and announcements that promote eternal reward for children who seek "martyrdom" , it has never encouraged children to become Suicide Bombers. --> The highlighted section was inserted here without a source and is simply Yuber's POV

2. The Islamic religion's texts, including the Hadith of Bukhari, also ancourages children to become shahid. The word shahid stems from the same root as Shahadah, meaning to bear witness or to testify, and is one of the Five Pillars of Islam, considered by Muslims to be the foundation, or base, of faith. Shahid literally translates as "Witness". -->This Section on Yuber's opinion regarding religion, also not sourced, is entirely irrelevant to anything in this article.

Please, can we quit wasting our time with Yuber? --Noitall 10:44, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

They were both mine, and not Yuber's. Point one, you are asking to prove a negative, can't be done less I source every single edition of every palestinian programme ever made and braodcasr on (Would-Be)State TV. Point two, If you want to know more about the Source of the hadiths, and the roots of the word I suggest going to Shahadah and Shahid. Is there a Problem with using Misplaced Pages as a source? --Irishpunktom\ 10:52, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

I appoligize Irishpunktom or I would not have done my own reactionary revert but would have discussed. Point 1 -- I think the 2nd statement fundamentally disagrees with the first. They can not both be correct. The first has a source. I understand that a person can not prove a negative, but since the first has a source, it seems the second is proven incorrect. Point 2 -- the issue is not whether it is correct or incorrect but whether a general statement about religion has anything to do with this page or with this point about what is being shown on TV. --Noitall 12:10, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

I'm rather struggling to see how the second point disproves the first. The first is that Palestinian TV has not encouraged children to become suicide bombers. The second explains that the Arabic word for "martyr" can also be understood as "witness" and this is what is urged on children. So the second seems to support the first. I'm not sure that the addition by Yuber is of more than very marginal use, but I think the general point is valid. Probably a bit too complex for those fed on rightwing blogs and American media though. Grace Note 13:28, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, the Source used uses the word Shahadah as if it means to become a martyr. We should highlight that Shahadah is the First of the Five Pillars of Islam and considered as the foundation of Islam, or as Yusuf Islam puts it, "the Base of faith". Example, the source says "Two 11 year old girls articulate their personal goal to Die for Allah - Shahada, explaining that “all Palestinian children” see Shahada because of its promised grand Afterlife, as more worthwhile than living." But, Shahada does not mean to die for Allah, it means to bear witness to Allah. It generally revolves around uttering a single phrase, Ashhadu Alla Ilaha Illa Allah Wa Ashhadu Anna Muhammad Rasulu Allah, or There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is his messenger. It's a big deal when kids recite the Shahadah in front of relatives and friends for the first time. And yes, it is believed that it leads to a great afterlife. Indeed, reciting this statement three times in front of witnesses is all that anyone need do to become a Muslim. The Flag of Saudi Arabia is green, with the Shahadah written on it. So, because of the source used, the second paragraph is needed to debunk the myths it attempts to create or perpetuate. --Irishpunktom\ 17:25, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Based on this talk discussion, I believe the following is a reasonable edit of the disputed passages:

Palestinian television has aired a number of music videos and announcements that promote eternal reward for children who seek "martyrdom" . However, the meaning of such media promotions is disputed. Some Westerners tend to believe that the exhortion is the commonly used "martyrdom" associated motivating suicide bombers. This is backed up by pictures and television footage of children at play with play bombs strapped to them and with pictures of cheering children at the locations of some suicide bombing locations. Some islamic experts, however, believe that the term "martydom" has an innocent meaning. The term translates to Shahadah, the First of the Five Pillars of Islam and considered as the foundation of Islam, or as Yusuf Islam puts it, "the Base of faith." The Islamic religion's texts, including the Hadith of Bukhari, ancourages children to become shahid. The word shahid stems from the same root as Shahadah, meaning to bear witness or to testify. Therefore, according to this view, Shahid literally translates as "Witness" and has no connection to suicide bombing.

Perhaps this will serve accuracy and the middle ground between 2 POVs. --Noitall 22:04, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Come off it. Firstly, there is no source cited showing PATV "pictures and television footage of children at play with play bombs strapped to them and with pictures of cheering children at the locations of some suicide bombing locations". Secondly, Martydom is Martyrdom and has only one meaning, however, Shahadah is not, as the source suggests, "Death for Allah". And I don't need a link to prove that, because Misplaced Pages is an Encyclopedia and you can just Click on the link for Shahadah to find out what it means. The Source says that Shahadah means a "personal goal to Die for Allah" or "seek Death for Allah".. And thus we know the source is flatly wrong, it is either misinformed, Terrible translators or deliberately lying. I would rather it completely removed, but their is an apparent consensus for it to stay, however, the source is wrong, and the actual meaning of the word Shahadah in it's religious sense, considering the Source has lifted it from religious pieces, must be kept, otherwise Misplaced Pages is lying. --Irishpunktom\ 23:48, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Why don't we go right to the video and see? Or would that destroy the whitewash?

Yussra: "Of course Shahada is a good thing. We don’t want this world, we want the Afterlife. We benefit not from this life, but from the Afterlife... The children of Palestine have accepted the concept that this is Shahada, and that death by Shahada is very good. Every Palestinian child aged, say 12, says ’Oh Lord, I would like to become a Shahid."

Doesn't look like it's this "Shahadah" you're referring to at all, looks DEFINITELY that they're going for "death by Shahada" e.g. suicide attacks.Enviroknot 00:38, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That is because that is the gloss you have decided to put on it. Shahadah is the first pillar of Islam, there is no other meaning. Selective quotes taken from random sentences to prove a point do not disguise that. Look as I quote you, "Why don't we go... destroy.. every Palestinian Child". Either the creaters of this Website don't know what the Shahadah is, and honestly believe it means to die for Allah, which it does not, or they are deliberately lying because people like you, and people who have an ignorance of Islam will believe them. --Irishpunktom\ 09:17, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

I am not certain we are going to satisfy someone with a particular POV. You can not ignore reality. If it helps the article to insert the photographs, then we can do that. As for Enviroknot's transcription, well that about says it all. The proposal can, of course, be modified. But I think it is the most balanced approach. --Noitall 02:05, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

I made a good proposal that balanced both sides. If you want a source, I think a picture says a thousand words. We can select one or more pictures here .

--Noitall 04:37, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Which, do tell, of those comes from the Official Televeision Network of the PAlestinian Authority ?--Irishpunktom\ 09:17, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Based on the information provided and the sources used, this is what the edit should be:

"Of course Shahada is a good thing. We don’t want this world, we want the Afterlife. We benefit not from this life, but from the Afterlife... The children of Palestine have accepted the concept that this is Shahada, and that death by Shahada is very good. Every Palestinian child aged, say 12, says ’Oh Lord, I would like to become a Shahid."

Some islamic experts, however, believe that the term "martydom" has an innocent meaning. The term translates to Shahadah, the First of the Five Pillars of Islam and considered as the foundation of Islam, or as Yusuf Islam puts it, "the Base of faith." The Islamic religion's texts, including the Hadith of Bukhari, ancourages children to become shahid. The word shahid stems from the same root as Shahadah, meaning to bear witness or to testify. Therefore, according to this view, Shahid literally translates as "Witness" and has no connection to suicide bombing.

--Noitall 13:08, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

- Where are you getting the word "Martyrdom" from ? Where do you have a source that quotes Martyrdom ? The Shahadah is not Martyrdom. --Irishpunktom\ 13:20, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Irishpunktom, I appreciate your advocacy and think your questions make it better, but there a lot of sources and commonly held beliefs here, see Martyr.

--Noitall 13:36, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Noitall, you keep using the word "martyrdom" in inverted commas as tough it was a quote. Why? Where is it from? Shahadah has never meant Martyrdom, not once, not ever. It can be broadly used as the word faith, but that can, obviously, only apply in Islam and not in general in Arabic. If you want to use the transaltion of the word Shahadah, then use the word Tesitomny, but that is the strict translation. The word martyrdom is not mentioned, adding it, especially in inverted commas, is wrong. --Irishpunktom\ 13:43, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

I see Irishpunktom started reverting within four minutes of the article being unprotected. If it continues, I'll protect it again.

I don't know whether these definitions of Shahid would be helpful: "Shahid means witness or martyr, University of Southern California" and "Shahid - (Arabic) A holy martyr. Used to refer to suicide bombers as well as saints." Mideastweb.org SlimVirgin 16:27, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Unreverted it contained a false or falsely attributed quote. Are you going to get involved in this SlimVirgin? I'd appreciate you acting as a third party, because I stand to be corrected. Shahid can be translated as Martyr, but Shahadah cannot be translated as Martyrdom (or "seek Death for Allah") as it is in the Source provided. --Irishpunktom\

I can't get too involved in this in case I have to protect it again, but I've just taken a quick look around. The only translation I can find of Shahadah is "testimony" or bear witness; nothing about martyrdom. SlimVirgin 19:41, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Why is anyone giving this Islamist liar Irishpunktom the time of day? It's obvious he can't be bothered to tell the truth about his religion. (unsigned comment)

I don't see the point in denigrating the contributions of somebody who has clearly put a lot of effort into clarifying the meaning of a controversial word. Aside from the question of whether or not the PA encourages suicide bombing/homicide bombing/killing puppies, the misdefinition of such a fundamental tenet of Islam represents a libel to all muslims, and plays into the hands of the fanatics who claim this interpretation in order to justify these acts.

This article is no good to anybody if it mutates into an essay on why Islam promotes suicide - as it doesn't. If somebody can be bothered to add more detail about why Wahabi Islam promotes suicide, then fine, but it doesn't work at the moment. illWill 19:23, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Before I make an edit (note that I have not made an edit here), I want to address 3 points:

1. Martyr: the term is clearly described in the Wiki martyr section and the term "martrydorm" (by the way, I did not insert that edit, but I support it) is described in Websters as "the suffering of death on account of adherence to a cause and especially to one's religious faith." This is accurate and ignoring the Western definition and interpretation does not help anyone or Wiki. The first paragraph section is about one POV, the Western POV, of media encouragement for martyrdom.

2. I believe SlimVirgin's description is a good way to show the dispute within the meaning, let me copy again:

"Shahid means witness or martyr, University of Southern California" and "Shahid - (Arabic) A holy martyr. Used to refer to suicide bombers as well as saints." Mideastweb.org

3. Irishpunktom states that the word "shahid" stems from the same root as "Shahadah". The PATV source addresses both words and places both in the context that could reasonably believe encourages suicide bombers. It is also appropriate to place the 2nd paragraph, as I did, that states that his meaning is disputed and there are valid reasons why it may not mean what it seems to mean.

--Noitall 19:49, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

This discussion should not be about religious texts. This discussion should solely focus on how the PA uses those texts for political purposes, mainly encouraging children to become bombers. This is almost undisputable fact. Suicide bombers during Arafat's time (and now) are plastered all over gaza. Music videos play songs about martyring oneself for the cause (which is taken as blowing one self up). Schools radicalize the youth for war and hatred of Jews. . So why are we still discussing this?

Guy Montag 19:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Maybe a middle ground could be found here somewhere (I'm feeling optimistic, perhaps erroneously so). Firstly, it seems that this dispute stems from a translation of a religious term from Arabic to English, so it's probably better to assume that a fixed meaning will be very difficult to reach, as Arabic speakers seem somewhat under-represented here.. Therefore, maybe it would be better to put something along the lines of "Some observers accuse the PA of inciting Suicide Bombing through the promotion of 'martyrdom', a deliberately ambiguous term which may be interpreted by some muslims as suicide bombing" Or something like that, but better worded.

The problem is the conflation between the interpretations of Hamas etc. of Islamic teaching, and the teaching itself. Irishpunktom's material should definitely be included in the article (and maybe also sourced). But reorganization may be for the best. illWill 19:59, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, edit conflict there. The problem is the conflation. Also, can we get some more sources that aren't from Palestinian media Watch? I'm no fan of the Palestinian State Media, but I consider PMW to be extremely biased. Hmm. More people need to learn arabic. illWill 20:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand your reason. The source is biased, but it does the job of showing specific instances of Palestinian media and education. It is only valid to question a biased source if you have strong suspicion that these statements were fabricated or ill construed, with evidence to boot. Other sources include MEMRI, if you want Arabic translation. Guy Montag 21:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

MEMRI? They are hardly neutral now are they? Ken Livingstone wrote "Take the Middle East Media Research Institute, run by a former colonel in Israeli military intelligence, which poses as a source of objective information but in reality selectively translates material from Arabic and presents Muslims and Arabs in the worst possible light.". I have to say that Will's idea is fine with me, phrased as "Some observers accuse the PA of inciting Suicide Bombing through the promotion of 'Shahid', a deliberately ambiguous term which may be interpreted by some muslims as suicide bombing". I'm willing to go with that. --Irishpunktom\ 21:46, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality is not MEMRI's job. It is to translate what the Arab press says privately about the West and Israel. Like I said before, you can't attack a source based on it's bias, you can only attack a source if it fabricated evidence or ill construed information. Unless you can prove that the articles MEMRI translates are innacurate or fabricated, attacking MEMRI or any source is a form of poisoning the well logical fallacy. Speaking of Livingstone, didn't he coddle known Islamist Al Qaradawi, who among other things, thinks that homosexuals should be executed, thinks that fighting Americans in Iraq is a religious duty, and who justifies suicide bombing? Makes you think.

Guy Montag 22:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't really think you can consider the press to be private. A source which selectively translates because of this bias is not the best source for info. Livingstone invited Al Qaradawi to London, not really sure why he thought that'd be a good idea though. Livingstone though is hardly a Homophopbe, he is one of the UK's most vocal proponents of Gay Marraige. He is also the only man in the labour Party I know who was expelled and then asked to join back again. He is an odd contradiction of a man, but he's consistently popular, even after introducing Congestion charges. --Irishpunktom\ 23:00, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

By privately I mean the difference between the statements they make in English and the statements they make in Arabic. Arafat for example, was notorious for saying everything Western leaders wanted to hear in English only to rail for Israel's destruction in Arabic. The same comes from other Arab newspapers and media. As for Livingstone, for a man who is called Red Ken and the most reviled man in Britian, he seems to love his religious extremists. Anyways, back on topic.

Guy Montag

Guy, I think that your points on the PATV and interpretation are simply common sense and those who want to ignore it can only be doing so to insert a POV. That said, I agree with Irishpunktom's objective of inserting an alternative explanation. Then it will be left to the readers to decide which is more credible. Deleting either version is inserting a POV.

--Noitall 21:54, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Look, I think that Irishpunktom (who I assume knows his religion) might have it right. But religious definitions are not what we are discussing. We are discussing how the PA exploits the term, not how it is used within the religious context. If Irishpunktom wishes to edit the term shahadah or whatever to conform to the correct religious beliefs of mainstream Muslims, no one is stopping him, barring pov or innaccuracies. But it is innacurate, irrelevent and a tangent to insert what Shahadah means in this article, or at least where IPT wants to put it, because in the PA context, the religious meaning is not used. If you want a note about Shahadah, lets discuss where we can put it, but it should absolutely not be used as a counterclaim to the PA encouraging children to become suicide bombers and running "summer camps" to train children to be suicide bombers or gunmen; that's fact.

Guy Montag 22:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that the source used maintains that Shahada means to die for Allah. It does not. As i've said earlier, it could be simply read as meaning faith, but that would be an Islamic way of looking at it, a strictly literal way would be to say it means tesitimony, but there is no way that it means to "die for Allah". Folks, if the promotion of Suicide Bombing on PA TV is so rampant, then surely you can come up with a better source! --Irishpunktom\ 23:00, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

I am familiar with the fact that different Islamic sects have different translations of Shahadah. I am sure that mainstream Islam ( predominantly Sunni) believes in your translation of Shahadah, Islamist translation believes in the "explosive" martyr. It is the Islamist translation that the PA exploits, and for various reasons, of which include competition with Hamas over legitimacy. Your problem is not with this article, it is with the Shahadah article. No one is stopping you from contributing there.

Guy Montag 01:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've changed the version to read:

Palestinian television has aired a number of music videos and announcements that promote eternal reward for children who seek "shahada" , which Palestinian Media Watch has claimed is "Islamic motivation of suicide terrorists". The Chicago Tribune has documented the concern of Palestinian parents that their children are encouraged to take part in suicide operations.

It's fully sourced, unlike the pure original research that Irishpunktom composed. If Tom wants to come up with links which state that Palestinians are not encouraging their children to become suicide bombers for religious reasons, he's certainly encouraged to, but original research must go, as per policy. Jayjg 22:31, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jay, we were in the middle of coming to a solution here before you arbitrarily decided what you had was better. Take you propositions to talk, or I will revert and encourage others to do so. Anyway, the meaning of Shahadah is not original research, it's taken from this very encyclopedia. Furthermore, I can not prove that Every Palestinian Programme ever made does not encourage "Martyrdom", I can't prove a negative, however, considering the sources provided alone, there is no evidence. --Irishpunktom\ 22:39, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

I think you could probably merge the two disputed paragraphs to reach a compromise by agreeing on the following statements) 1. the PA has aired programmes which may be perceived to promote suicide bombing through interpretation of Islamic teachings. 2. These interpretations can, and are, disputed, especially as it is difficult to find a reliable arabic to english translation.

I don't think that it is necessary to aviod the extremist nature of some of the PA's output, as it isn't surprising given the social conditions of its production, but I don't see any other way of reaching a compromise - arguing about the interpretation of religious terms is beyond the scope of wikipedia - otherwise it would be possible to solve the internal conflicts of all religions. I think the material about the term "shahada" needs to be included to clarify that Palestinian extremism (whatever your opinion of it) is not producedd by Islam but by Palestinian society (whatever your opinion is of teh conditions that shape that society).illWill 00:30, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, I just read through www.eufunding.org (Jay's link) - it's an Israeli advocacy site set up to attack the EU which uses seemingly neutral language - although almost every article on the site is about how corrupt the PA is, how hateful their education system is etc, and their sources in several cases are documents obtained by the Israeli Defence Force. I'm not disputing the Chicago tribune bit, but eufuding.org is not an unbiased source.illWill 00:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Will, I have told the same thing to you as I have to Irishpunk. Attacking someone's bias is poisoning the well. If you have evidence of falsehood, attack that.

Guy Montag 00:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, this seems to no longer be a discussion about the clear facts, but a discussion about how to best cover up facts. It is a widely known fact that Palestinian society encourages suicide bombing based on Islamist interpertation of shahadah. This Islamist interpertation comes from the need to legitimize Palestinian violence in religious terms; That's fact. Palestinian television incites to murder Jews. thats a fact. Palestinians glorify suicide bombers; thats a fact. Saddam Hussein paid each family 10,000 dollars for each child they sent to blow up Israelis; thats a fact. Palestian's have "Paradise Camps" that train children as young as 9 to blow themselves up; that's fact. What you proposed, Will, is POV. So, what in the hell are we still discussing?

Guy Montag 00:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's not poisoning the well to dispute information sourced from an organisation set up to promote onle POV, and one only. www.eufunding.org is allied with www.honestreporting.com (another Israeli advocate site which aims to 'help Israel win the media war') and for a foundation which has the resources to produce huge reports like the ones on their site, it's odd that they don't even have a physical office - instead they share a PO box with a lingerie company.

I'd like to read the Chicago tribune report, but unfirtunately their site isn't free - the quote cited above is reproduced on www.eufunding.org.illWill 00:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, I don't have any dispute with these issues (although I do dispute that they need to be followed with = FACT every time they are re-stated) my problem is with the presentation and the use of what i consider to be unreliable sources. I subscribe to the www.honestreporting.com newsletter, and these sites just reproduce information from each other - just because something is endlessly repeated doesn't mean it is unbiased, or true. illWill 00:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please find more unbiased sources before reverting

Look, I'm not even disputing the claims being made here, but the article is just pingponging between two different varieties of POV. On teh one hand, Tom's stuff is allegedly 'original research' (difficult to prove, it's more interpretation than research) and on the other Guy/Jay's stuff originates from a POV source. if I had the time to go and check out a textbook on Islamic interpretation of teh Shahadah I would, but it's a lot more difficult to get that from my desktop, whereas it's pretty easy to link to one of countless Israeli advocacy sites on the net.

It also seems that Guy Montag is not actually interested in debating the source issue - he just ignored my comments about teh sources and then reverted. Whatever. I will try and come up with a more neutral version. I don't think there's any way you could categorise the suggestions I have made above as POV, unless of course that is 'not my POV'illWill 01:39, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's futile to try to debate with Mr. self-proclaimed right-wing Zionist nationalist.Yuber 02:32, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I posted this on your Talk page Will, but I'll post it here again.
The CIA's website says, speaking of the flag of Saudi Arabia, "green, a traditional color in Islamic flags, with the Shahada or Muslim creed in large white Arabic script (translated as "There is no god but God; Muhammad is the Messenger of God")" --Irishpunktom\ 08:18, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

That's fine, I certainly wouldn't dispute that source. However, it seems that user Enviroknot has now started reverting the page. Sigh. Also, I think the focus on this small paragraph is obscuring the fact that the same conflation between Islam aand suicide bombing occurs throughout the article. I would try working on making the language more neutral, but it would be a waste of time if it's going to keep getting reverted without explanation. illWill 11:51, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Procedure

A combination of editors made a sourced edit. It violates Wiki procedures to just declare a whole bunch of sources as "biased" and to revert. The proper procedure as discussed at length in this talk page is to fully and completely write out your dispute and arguments and to insert them in the article, without deleting the other portion. --Noitall 11:59, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

I would be willing to do that, only I don't have any confidence that Esome users will not just revert the article as soon as any changes are made. Also, this dispute centres around the removal of material added by Irishpunktom which seems to be intended to balance the debate. The article as it stands is not remotely acceptable, and the questioning of sources seems to me a perfectly legitamte tactic. illWill 12:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you had not noticed . . . . this is a controversial article! Please do not revert or take away edits made by those with a different POV. And if you question sources, do it on the talk page, but do not revert or edit other insertions. Now, as to your concern on my personal talk page about being reverted if you add a paragraph with your POV with your analysis, I will ensure that your paragraph is not reverted by others. This page is controversial with strong POVs, please stay in your POV and make your arguments as strong as they can be.

--Noitall 12:50, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Fine, I'm happy to proceed that way. I think the material added by Irishpunktom needs to go in there, but i will try and add it in a manner that doesn't force a revert, in line with the suggestions I have made earlier on this page. illWill 12:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Have done a slight reword - definition of shahada still needed somwhere. I'm concerned about the source on "terror training camps" the ADL article is just a press release and doens't give any indication at all of where its claims originated.

Also, the section on "profile of a bomber" needs some sources - who has claimed that the bombers are usually middle class and college educated? Being as the Palestinian society is very poor, is this really likely?illWill 13:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That would be me. I thought I'd sourced that -- the easiest reference is a report from NPR (hardly a right wing POV source) at . Mikeage 13:58, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, the source was very interesting. I'm just on the lookout for dubious sources in articles related to this topic.illWill 14:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

.. and another thing

This entire piece is incredibly Wesern, or Israeli-Centered. There has been a constant stream of Suicide-Bomb attacks in Iraq since the war. Yesterday alone 28 people died in suicide attacks. --Irishpunktom\ 19:52, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Fair point. illWill 20:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Minor Edits

I've made some minor edits, which i thought were so insignificant they wouldn't need to be discussed... but they were reverted..

I replaced The Arab term for suicide bombing is "Isshtahad" or "Shahadat" with "The Arab term for suicide bombing is "Isshtahad" BECAUSE - Shahadat is not the Arab term for a Suicide bomber, it is in fact the pural for Shahada, and translates directly as testimonies. I have never heard of Isshtahad.
I replaced "Shahid" (pl. "Shuhada"). " with ""Shahid", pl. "Shahiddin")." because Shuhada is not the plural of Shahid, Shahiddin is. Much like the plural of Mujahid is Mujahiddin.
The original meaning of the word "Shahid" in Arabic is a person who died in a Jihad becomes The original meaning of the word "Shahid" in Islam is a person who died in a Jihad... Because Shahid translates from Arabic as Witness, it is only from Islam does it translate as a person who died in a Jihad.

Thats it i think. I really didn't think they were that major that they warranted a revert. --Irishpunktom\ 21:00, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Noitall might revert you just for kicks.Yuber 21:02, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I believe that Irishpunktom's was a fine edit. In fact, for the first time, I thought Yuber made an adequate edit (and not a reversion!!!) and therefore did not touch it. Let's keep it up! --Noitall 21:08, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

BTW, Irishpunktom, you might have knowledge of this: how does the West have the idea of the 72 virgins waiting for suicide bombers in heaven? This was an unsourced but commonly held belief in this article. Is there a language discrepancy or belief? --Noitall 21:13, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Where did the west get it from? From Muslims, of course: . The Qur'an promises young full-breasted maidens/voluptuous women in paradise (An-Naba 78:31-34), and the hadith (Sunan al-Tirmidhi 2687) clarify there will be 72 of them. It was a standard part of Muslim faith for centuries, though it's being called into question by revisionists these days. In any case, it's certainly promised by traditionalists. I'll go fix Tom's unagreed upon delete. Jayjg 21:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, about that, 72 Virgins is not Necessarily an unbiased translation, however it is one of several (an alternate translation sees it translated as merely servant girl). But, thats beside the point, at least it is for me. 72 "houri" one of the many many things awaiting someone who enters the highest plain of Paradise in Islam, and, as I understood part of a series of things not to be viewed literally. other rewards include a light of beauty, blissfull joy, a large garden of fruits, clothes as of silk... and on and on and on. highlighting one, and not all the others signifies either the editers (somewhat perverse) POV, or, as I suspect, just a lack of knowledge of the concept of Jannah --Irishpunktom\ 21:39, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

There are many translations and some of them include "magnificent spouses" and "maidens of equal age". Either way, the 72 part is not present, and it's just a description of Heaven in any case. Here people are trying to claim it to be a specific reward for blowing yourself up, which there is no evidence for. Oh, and PMW is not exactly the most unbiased source, neither is Jayjg's interpretation of that verse being a "standard part of Muslim faith".Yuber 21:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The "72" part is found in the hadith, it's been a standard part of Muslim teaching for centuries, and the actual media broadcasts are available for watching if you don't trust PMW. I didn't make up the hadith or those broadcasts. Try to abide by the rules here, thanks. Jayjg 22:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and it's not just my interpretation: According to Sheik Abdul Hadi Palazzi of the Cultural Institute of the Italian Islamic Community:

Islam says there are 72 wives for every believer who is admitted to Heaven, and not only for a martyr. The proof is a hadith which is collected by Imam at-Tirmidhi in "Sunan" (Volume IV, Chapters on "The Features of Heaven as described by the Messenger of Allah", Chapter 21: "About the Smallest Reward for the People of Heaven", hadith 2687) It is also quoted by Ibn Kathir in his Tafsir (Koranic Commentary) of Surah ar-Rahman (55), ayah (verse) 72:
It was mentioned by Daraj Ibn Abi Hatim, that Abu al-Haytham 'Abdullah Ibn Wahb narrated from Abu Sa'id al-Khudhri, who heard the Prophet Muhammad (Allah's blessings and peace be upon him) saying, 'The smallest reward for the people of Heaven is an abode where there are 80,000 servants and 72 wives, over which stands a dome decorated with pearls, aquamarine and ruby, as wide as the distance from al-Jabiyyah to San'a.
Ibn Kathir's Commentary on Surah al-Waqi'ah (56), ayat (verses) 35-37, quotes the hadith according to which "The Prophet Muhammad, Allah's blessings and peace be upon him, was asked: 'Will we have sex in Paradise?' He answered: 'Yes, by Him Who holds my soul in His hand, and it will be done with a strong shove. When it is finished, she will return untouched and virgin again."

--Jayjg 22:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Include it if they believe it (which judging by the martyrdom videos, they do) - but it's probably necessary to add the usual proviso about interpretation of these teachings. We shouldn't let fanatical interpretations of Islamic teaching stand - that's just what the fanatics would want.illWill 22:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I said your interpretation was that it is a standard part of the Muslim faith. There are many translations of it and the 72 part does not exist in the Qur'an. Picking and choosing one and saying it's "standard" is your own personal interpretation.Yuber 22:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The point is not whether or not it is standard; the point is that the Palestinian media promises it to shaheed, as the links made clear. And if you don't believe PMW, how about CBS: "Wallace: Your state-controlled television carried a sermon by a sheik telling worshippers that martyrs will go to paradise and marry 70 beautiful virgins." Jayjg 22:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just dont like the way that it is the single mention of the rewards of Jannah. The implication is thus that the attacks are sexually motivated. --Irishpunktom\ 22:16, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's what the Palestinian broadcast emphasized, isn't it? That's the point. Jayjg 22:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How do you know what the Palestinian broadcast emphasized? All you know is what the American and Israeli groups emphasized. Without hearing the full recitations or Sermons you do not know, so stop pretending you do. --Irishpunktom\ 22:23, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

It's right in the broadcast, Tom. Ask an Arabic speaker to translate it for you if you don't believe it. Jayjg 22:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That it is "in the broadcast" does not mean it was emphasized. How do you know the sermon(s) were not about the rewards of Jannah, and included references to all of the rewards? --Irishpunktom\ 22:53, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

And by the way, even pro-Muslim scholars agree that it is a standard belief, regardless of its veracity:

But there are other delights as well, according to a Hadith in an authoritative collection called Sunan al-Tirmidhi, which would be on the shelves of any Muslim scholar. In my edition, published in Beirut, it can be found in a section called "The Book of Description of the Garden," chapter 23, titled "The least reward for the people of Heaven," Hadith number 2562. The Hadith reads literally as follows: "Sawda (Tirmidhi’s grandfather) reported that he heard from Abdullah, who received from Rishdin b. Sa’d, who in turn learned from Amr b. al-Harith, from Darraj, from Abul-Haytham, from Abu Sa’id al-Khudri, who received it from the Apostle of God : The least for the people of Heaven is 80,000 servants and 72 wives, over which stands a dome of pearls, aquamarine and ruby, as between al-Jaabiyya and San’a." That these 72 wives are virgin is confirmed by Quran (55:74) and commentaries on that verse. Al-Jaabiyya was a suburb of Damascus, according to the famous 14th century commentator, Isma’il Ibn Kathir, so one personal jeweled dome would stretch the distance from Syria to Yemen, some 1,600 miles.

Was this tradition intended to be believed literally? Do Muslims believe it literally? Are they required to? This particular Hadith has technical weaknesses in its chain of transmitters and is therefore not considered impeccable, though it is listed in an authoritative collection. As a result, Muslims are not required to believe in it, though many inevitably do (but an even more respectable Hadith with virtually the same message can be found in Tirmidhi K. Fada’il al-Jihad 25:1663).

--Jayjg 22:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

virgins - what the hell is going on?

Every time I look at this page there are edits and rvs of a paragraph that mentions the infamous 72 black eyed virgins. Why is there fighting over whether or not to put this in? I think there should be a section on it because it is a huge part of the topic, whether or not it is based on an "accurate" interpretation of the quran. There are numerous instances cited all over the media of Palestinian and other Islamic extremist preachers citing the notion that 72 virgins await the shahid. Misplaced Pages should probably mention this, should probably have some information about what part of the Quran it is based on, and should probably discuss whether or not it is widely believed (if such information is available). Misplaced Pages should neither ignore it nor cite it uncritically. Instead of a revert war, how about a more involved explanation of what is actually going on here?csloat 22:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've given plenty of sources above regarding its belief by at least some Muslims, and its use to encourage shaheed. However, some people insist on deleting it regardless. Jayjg 22:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not removing the material, as I think it needas to be there - but some anonymous IP is reverting, probably because of Yuber's input. Please check my last revision. ThanksillWill 22:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Islamists want to keep it out because it exposes Islam's mysogynist nature. This despite the NUMEROUS Islamic commentators over the centuries who have mentioned it as well as the citations in Quran and Hadith.

Al-Suyuti's (died 1505) is at once the most informative and repulsive: "Each time we sleep with a houri we find her virgin. Besides, the penis of the Elected never softens. The erection is eternal; the sensation that you feel each time you make love is utterly delicious and out of this world and were you to experience it in this world you would faint. Each chosen one will marry seventy houris, besides the women he married on earth, and all will have appetising vaginas." Face it: Islamic "paradise" is all about the men. Women quite literally get the shaft. They'll never admit to it up front because it exposes them for the pigs they are.

Firstly, Ibn al-Asyuti was a Sufi of the Ash'ari school. He was a mystic who wrote a lot about a lot of things not considered to Mainstream Islamic. he wrote about the benefits of getting completely drunk, for example, whereas mainstream islam bans all alcohol and intoxication.

Secondly, what exactly are you hoping to achieve by referring to people of a different faith as "pigs" ? --Irishpunktom\ 22:40, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

LOL, you bring in some horny guy speculating about heaven a millennia after Islam was founded and that is your proof?Yuber 22:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anon IP is trolling. Ignore it, although this page will need to be protected if it carries on. Oh, and Yuber, my comment wasn't an aattack on you - I think the, ahem, 'forthright' nature of your editing is resulting in anon IPs (no prizes for speculating as to who) following you around.illWill 22:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That guy has blindly reverted me on anything. This one's my favorite , he reverts a spelling and wording change that I made.Yuber 22:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Check out the edit histories on our three anon IP friends. Sherlock Holmes does not need to be called to work out who is behind all three of them. What's the rules concerning this?illWill 22:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can you give more details, please, Will, so I can check out what you're saying? SlimVirgin 23:01, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Also posted on Slimvirgin user page.

Forgive me if I haven't followed the format correctly. If you look at the followin edit histories:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Contributions&target=217.160.75.48}

It's pretty clear this is the same person, or if not that then two people acting together. Note insults against Yuber; bigoted comments about Islam; repeated reverts to the same articles etc. Hopefully this is helpful, as various contributors managed to reach a relative consensus on suicide bombing. What is the procedure for this? illWill 23:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

At least propose an Edit or Reversion on the Talk Page Please

Tedious vandal reversion, although at least he's bothered to log in this time. illWill 00:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have requested this page be protected,.illWill 00:34, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the latest dispute, I think it is over the 72 virgins, I can't figure out what the dispute is about except that a serial reverter got involved. Would someone please put the issues or words here on this page that are disputed? It seems like people are reverting to revert and I don't see any analysis at all to even make up my own mind.

--Noitall 02:22, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

I am going to the latest reversion, done on 08:36, Jun 17, 2005 by 24.56.238.108 (revert vandalism) --> What is the objection to this version? --Noitall 02:26, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

This discussion is going fast nowhere. First sources are erased for dubious reasons. I don't even know what the dispute is anymore.

Guy Montag 02:56, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Irishpunktom and Yuber want to whitewash it. Yuber's up to his usual.Enviroknot 03:16, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I believe that your statement is incorrect (there is no analysis), and for once I am not criticizing Yuber. It seems to me that the protected version is the right one and all the edits seem reasonable. I don't see any sources erased. You are going to have to point out something unreasonable or with an unchallenged POV to be able to legitimately criticize here. --Noitall 04:45, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

This version is okay - I don't think we can really take any comments by Enviroknot seriously due to persistent trolling from anon IPS, personal attacks on almost every user here and ignoring any discussion on the talk page. This page is locked entirely dues to his actions.

I also have no idea what Guy is referring to when he says ' sources erased for dubious reasons'.illWill 09:12, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1. Islamic/Arab cultural aspects to entrenched social power of the fundamentalist Islamists - Obvious attempt at POV minimization. Support for suicide bombings and Jihad goes well beyond "fundamentalist Islamists" in the world's Muslim population.

2. Such to These radical schools of Islam teach that such - AGAIN, minimalization. It's not just "radical schools of Islam", it's Islamic state TV and Imams all over the world teaching this. Wholly POV and INACCURATE.

3. Furthermore, it has been argued that martyrdom operations are justified according to Islamic law to by Islamist militant organisations (including Al Quaida, Hamas and Islamic Jihad) - AGAIN, nothing more than minimalization, and a minimalization that is highly inaccurate.

This version is clearly NOT okay, the latest edits are all inaccurate and POV.

Also, no, this page is locked because Yuber, and now You William, are POV-pushing who refused to discuss the aforementioned edits before you made them.

I numbered the 3 points to make it easier and took off some of the personal attack. I think the modification done by Yuber and Will was done in good faith and, they may push a POV, but these mods were reasonable. That does not mean that they can't be modified to suit instead of serial reversions. Let's look at them:

1. entrenched social power of the fundamentalist Islamists is far better and non-POV.

2. Radical schools of Islam seems like a good description to me and not POV pushing.

3. Agree that a middle ground is needed. But don't you push your POV, find a more inclusive middle ground.

--Noitall 13:35, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

1. See below: it isn't "entrenched social power of fundamentalist Islamists" it's a much larger cultural problem.

2. Palestinian State TV, Syrian State TV, Al-Manar, and plenty of other Arab newspapers and TV stations distribute this. It's not just "Radical schools of Islam" and you know it.

This is the standard Islamist way of doing business - talk about how it's "just radicals" in English, and then turn around and crow about the "glorious shahid" in Arabic. It happens all the time. You should read this page's Arabic equivalent sometime, Yuber and his cronies already did their shit-work there and nobody's willing to stand up to them.

Please number and put your comments on your own comment section. You can be humorous, you can be strong, but calling names when no one has attacked you or put you down and, at best, there is very mild POV pushing will not win any arguments. On the issues:

1. I absolutely disagree, the current version is best.

2. Make a proposed edit, don't just call names.

3. You have not made a proposed edit. Be productive.

--Noitall 13:56, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly made by day to be called an Islamist - it's not often I get called an Islamist and a godless, socialist heathen (not on Misplaced Pages) on the same day. Yes, I do have a POV (like everybody here) - my POV is that Misplaced Pages should allow the reader to understand the spectrum of opinions on both sides of a debate. If that requires making the article longer then fine, lack of space is no reason to conflate various arguments together. i am no fan of the Islamists, but changing the article to suggest that all muslims support suicide bombing just makes it look bad. If you have evidence to suggest this (such as a demographic survey, for example) then include it here and you could proably change my opinion. As it is, I can't take somebody seriously if they just use the article to call people names without making any constructive solutions. illWill 14:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1. And I believe the earlier version is FAR better. Minimalization is apologism and does not help at all. But if you're THAT concerned about it, how about "cultural factors in the region" if you're objecting to the phrase "Islamic/Arab".

2. The earlier edit was better. The problem with your POV nonsense is that these so-called "radical" schools of Islam are the mainstream of Islam. All it takes is a quick look through Arab state-run television networks, radio networks, and newspaper networks to see it. That and the fact that books like Mein Kampf and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are not only best-sellers but get "documentaries" like Diaspora (from Syrian TV) and Zahra's Blue Eyes (Iranian TV) made based on them. Pro-Palestinian "Kill the Jews" rallies get 500 people without bothering advertising - "Free Muslims against Terrorism" ran national ads to get attention for their rally and could barely get 50 people to show up. Claiming otherwise is trying to whitewash Islam.

3. How about "Supporters of suicide bombings argue that they are justified under Islamic Sharia law because..."?

You sound like an LGFer, pure and simple. You are already so entrenched in your racist and xenophobic POV that there's no hope debating with you , Enviroknot.Yuber 16:01, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wow. Yuber calls someone racist, xenophobic, an LGFer, and accuses someone of sockpuppetry all in one sentence. Oh, wait, this is YUBER we're talking about, Mr. Serial-Reverter 2005. Go away, Yuber.

Yeah, someone needs to get rid of this Islamist Twerp Yuber for good. He sounds like an IndymIdiot.

Categories: