Suicide bombing likely to increase as more militant groups adopt tactic, research shows

Sep 22, 2010

“Many state and international counter-terrorism initiatives are based on misconceptions of the underlying reasons behind terrorism and suicide bombing,” says Dr. Paul Gill, who has been selected to receive the ECPR Jean Blondel Prize for the best political science thesis in Europe.

In his work, The Dynamics of Suicide Bombing in Campaigns of Political Violence, which he completed for his PhD at University College Dublin, Ireland, Dr. Gills shows that suicide bombings have become the ultimate smart bomb in the militant group’s repertoire.

“They typically cause more human and structural damage than conventional bombings,” explains Dr. Gill, who is now a postdoctoral research fellow at the International Center for the Study of Terrorism (ICST) at Pennsylvania State University in the United States.

“And a successful suicide bombing may also increase the membership of a militant organisation or increase wider constituent support for the organisations campaign.”

According to Dr. Gill, the worldwide diffusion of suicide bombing to conflict zones is largely due to the success of the first sustained campaign of suicide bombings in Lebanon through the 1980s, when foreign troops were forced out of the country.

“The IRA possessed many of the organisational resources necessary to sustain a campaign of suicide bombings,” says Dr. Gill, “but from 1982-1992 the IRA was decreasing its campaign of violence and turning towards electoral politics. The timing of this shift in strategy is likely to be one of the key reasons why the IRA never engaged in suicide bombings.”

After turning to electoral politics, the political wing of the IRA (Sinn Fein) had to mobilise passive support into active support at the polls. They also needed to build a mass movement encapsulating support from both sides of the border. “And any act of indiscriminate violence would impact upon this new political strategy,” says Dr. Gill.

“Similar processes have occurred with Hamas and Hezbollah,” he explains. “As they became involved in elections, they decreased their number of violent attacks.”

In his research, Dr. Gill acknowledges that the majority of suicide bombers experienced by the Western World, in its own territory or in Afghanistan or Iraq, are male Muslims under 35.

But, he says, “on a worldwide basis, suicide bombers have ranged from 15 to 70 years old, been very well educated and uneducated, male and female, from all socio-economic classes, Christian, Hindu, Sikh and Muslim, religious and secular, single and married, white and black.”

“Counter-terrorism measures should move away from profiling suicide bombers,” says Dr. Gill. “And rather move towards a model of the structural and situational processes that facilitate and encourage the recruitment of suicide bombers.”

“Anti terrorism policies should focus on reducing the fear induced by militant attacks rather than reducing the limited chances of further attacks, and not just be aimed at domestic audiences but at all potential constituencies of militant groups.”

“Reducing the levels of ‘threat perception’ may go a long way toward keeping these militant groups on the fringes,” he explains.

“One potential source of decreasing levels of threat, other than refraining from over the top military action, is through peaceful negotiation with all the relevant insurgent groups. Excluding some from the process is likely to increase their levels of violence,” he says.

“From the opinion polls in Palestine, we can see that when there was a peace plan on the table, optimism for the future increased and support for suicide bombings decreased.”

“The prevailing political situation directly impacts on the support for suicide bombing,” he says. “If people feel that there is a viable alternative to protracted violence, they may be more willing to denounce acts of suicide bombing.”

The ECPR Jean Blondel Prize is awarded by the European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR), an independent, scholarly association which encourages the training, research and cross-national co-operation of political scientists throughout Europe and the rest of the world.

Explore further: Benefits of telecommuting greater for some workers, study finds

Provided by University College Dublin

not rated yet
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Suicide bombers' motivations are studied

Jun 21, 2007

A British scientist says the view that suicide bombers are brainwashed, religious fanatics vulnerable through poverty and youth is not accurate.

New research may save lives in suicide bombings

Mar 23, 2009

Florida Institute of Technology researchers have determined that where a person is standing in a room or other location during a suicide terrorist attack can have a great bearing on survival and injuries.

Recommended for you

User comments : 64

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

freethinking
1.4 / 5 (11) Sep 22, 2010
Stupid study alert that can kill. This guy is the biggist idiot I've read on Physorg.

Please name one suicide bomber who was a christian. I don't know of any Hindu's or Sikhs who have carried out suicide attacks in the last 10 years, but even if they have, the truth is Muslims are the number 1 users of suicide bombers, and are the number one group for terrorist actions. Hamas has not renounced or reduced the amount of violence.

The author then went even more stupid when he said...Anti terrorism policies should focus on reducing the fear induced by militant attacks rather than reducing the limited chances of further attacks...

In other words, as you are about to be killed by a murderer, quite worrying about it, don't try and stop them.

Skeptic_Heretic
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 22, 2010
Please name one suicide bomber who was a christian. I don't know of any Hindu's or Sikhs who have carried out suicide attacks in the last 10 years, but even if they have, the truth is Muslims are the number 1 users of suicide bombers, and are the number one group for terrorist actions. Hamas has not renounced or reduced the amount of violence.

Christian Suicide bomber: Loula Abboud for one, Wisal Indris was in 2002. Many Palestinian Christians have suicide bombed mosques and temples alike.
Hindu Suicide Bombers: The Tamil Tigers, they're also the first suicide bombers and still bombing today.
Sikh Suicide Bombers: 2007 KZF suicide bombers rocked Jalandhar, India

So if you think Muslims are the originators, or only perpetrators, you're missing a lot of history.
Curtix
3.5 / 5 (4) Sep 23, 2010
I would agree its silly to think that only Muslims have been carrying out suicide bombings.
HOWEVER - they most certainly are, and by far, the number one propagators, even more so in the recent times.
Glyndwr
4 / 5 (4) Sep 23, 2010
Sceptic Heretic is right, stop generalising a whole religion and try giving specific examples and groups, locations and dates
frajo
3.1 / 5 (7) Sep 23, 2010
I would agree its silly to think that only Muslims have been carrying out suicide bombings.
HOWEVER - they most certainly are, and by far, the number one propagators, even more so in the recent times.
I don't see any reason why a suicide bomber should be more detestable than an unassailable bomber in several km flight height or at the controls of a remote attack drone.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Sep 23, 2010
I don't see any reason why a suicide bomber should be more detestable than an unassailable bomber in several km flight height or at the controls of a remote attack drone.
In action and intent I agree, however the mindset and psychological state of a suicide bomber is far more deviant than that of a bomber pilot, and that's the interesting piece to researchers.
freethinking
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 23, 2010
SH, must be conservative conspiracy, can you please provide links/date/time for christian suicide bombers. I can't find them.

Even IF there are 1 or 2 people who say they are christians who commit suicide bombings or even any terrorist acts, there is no christian denomination or even large church pastor that says it is ok to do so. There is no christian country that promotes it, and statistically it is so rare that to focus on it IS a waste of resources.

Currently, Muslims ARE the number 1 group that sponsors, carries out, supports, terrorist acts. They are the number 1 group that uses suicide bombing. Deny that and you are an idiot. Focus on preventing a terrorist attack by catholic nuns is as stupid as a 2 pack a day smoker alcoholic being concerned about eating organically grown vegetables.

As for frajo comments. Is it morally right to kill someone who is going to kill innocent people? If someone is going to kill you, will you kill them in self defence?
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 23, 2010
SH, must be conservative conspiracy, can you please provide links/date/time for christian suicide bombers. I can't find them.
Can't find them or didn't look?
Loula Abboud April 20th 1985, Lebanon
Wisal Idris January 2002, Israel

Even IF there are 1 or 2 people who say they are christians who commit suicide bombings or even any terrorist acts, there is no christian denomination or even large church pastor that says it is ok to do so.
They don't consider it suicide, they consider it martyrdom, just as the Muslims do.
Currently, Muslims ARE the number 1 group that sponsors, carries out, supports, terrorist acts.
Actually it's Christians. You're ignoring the constant strife that's taking place in Africa as well as the former Sein Fenn actions and the actions of the people of East Timor. Currently active sects include: National Liberation Front of Tripura, National Socialist Council of Nagaland, Easter Rising, Lord's Resistance Army, the KKK, the Hutaree, etc.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 23, 2010
The problem with your statements, FT, is the fact that you're generalizing one group of people and specifying the second. If you're going to say "all Muslims support terror" and only a small minority do, then you need to turn around and say "all christians support terror" because the grounds for your definition are alike.

Or you could simply recant your prior statements and say "All credulous faithful, regardless of religion or ideology, are capable of supporting or creating terror based upon other aspects of their personality, group, or message."
freethinking
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 23, 2010
SH, your knowledge of christianity is lacking.
KKK is not a christian organization,
IRA terrorsts were Irish seeking political ends.
National Socialist Council of Nagaland, terrorist supported by communist china, again a political communist movement.
The two people you mentioned, not christian at all.

I also did not say all muslims support terror, only that muslims are the #1 group supporting terrorists.

I would dare every person who holds as stupid belief as yours about Christianity and Muslims to do the following. Go to Rome and burn the bible and rosary beeds in front of the Pope. Then after go to Mecca and draw an image of Mohammed, or just threaten to burn the koran.

Unfortnately progressives/liberals are cowards. They will pee on crosses, burn bibles, call christian terrorists, however shake in their boots not to offend people who will kill them.
freethinking
1 / 5 (7) Sep 23, 2010
SH I have a proposition for you. I'll go to rome and publically burn a bible at any church you choose and you go to any muslim country and publically burn a koran. The person who dies, pays the other a million dollars.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 23, 2010
SH, your knowledge of christianity is lacking.
KKK is not a christian organization,
IRA terrorsts were Irish seeking political ends.
National Socialist Council of Nagaland, terrorist supported by communist china, again a political communist movement.
The two people you mentioned, not christian at all.
The KKK are the "Christian Knights of The Circle" or did you forget that? The IRA were Irish Catholics seeking freedom from Protestant rule, ie: religiously motivated terrorists. The NSCN is backed by the Chinese however they are working for a Christian state in North East India. The two people I mentioned, both Christian.

Then you go on to make a bunch of worthless ad hominem attacks. Sorry, the data doesn't fit your worldview. Grow up a bit and deal with it.

Also, sorry, I don't burn books, effigies, or anything of the sort. I prefer to steer clear of your "cleansing fire". It starts with items and ends with people. I'd prefer to never start.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (8) Sep 23, 2010
I'm not trying to get in a religious pissing match with you FT. I really don't care what the religion of a bunch of kooky suicide bombers is. They all share a common thread, despair, depression, and delusion. The three Ds of suicide bombing don't heed religious boundaries, or particular houses of worship, but when you make ridiculous statements and generalize to disparage a religion that holds a different worldview than yours, your bigotry comes out in a big way. As I said above, feel free to withdraw your statement and correct it as appropriate.
freethinking
1 / 5 (6) Sep 23, 2010
Sorry SH, the fact don't fit your hatred worldview of christians. Lumping the KKK with Christianity is just stupid ignorance. Lumping Irish seeking independence with catholics world wide stupid. (However during the time of the IRA, profiling a Irish person would have been prudent and was done, and by so doing saved lives.) Italian Catholics didn't bomb protestants. Lumping communists with christians stupid (fundamentally oposite belief, its like saying you can be a christian atheist).

Burning the books was just an example and I dont advocate burning of books either it was driving home the point that progressives are cowards. Pick on people that at worst will pray for you, but back down and protect evil people like muslim terrorists.

The statement is true, Today most terrorists and suicide bombers are muslims.

I also dont care what religion is doing the bombing, if it was catholic nuns, then profile catholic nuns.

frajo
4 / 5 (4) Sep 24, 2010
I don't see any reason why a suicide bomber should be more detestable than an unassailable bomber in several km flight height or at the controls of a remote attack drone.
In action and intent I agree, however the mindset and psychological state of a suicide bomber is far more deviant than that of a bomber pilot, and that's the interesting piece to researchers.
We would have to talk about social norms and their variability which is certainly an interesting topic.
But I was just addressing Curtix' obvious islamophobia.
frajo
3 / 5 (4) Sep 24, 2010
Focus on preventing a terrorist attack by catholic nuns
Which the graduates of the School of the Americas were quite successful with in Central and South America, isn't it?
Is it morally right to kill someone who is going to kill innocent people? If someone is going to kill you, will you kill them in self defence?
Every killer suggests that his innocent victims were going to kill him. His problem is that this suggestion is a non-falsifiable statement and therefore invalid.
This consideration concerns single crimes but not mass murders like those I mentioned.

A mass murderer (like a suicide bomber or a bomber crew member) generally doesn't know anything about his victims. Especially he doesn't know whether his victims were going to kill him personally. So your argument holds no water.
frajo
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 24, 2010
Currently, Muslims ARE the number 1 group that sponsors, carries out, supports, terrorist acts.
Actually it's Christians. You're ignoring the constant strife that's taking place in Africa as well as the former Sein Fenn actions and the actions of the people of East Timor. Currently active sects include: National Liberation Front of Tripura, National Socialist Council of Nagaland, Easter Rising, Lord's Resistance Army, the KKK, the Hutaree, etc.
Where the case of Northern Ireland shows that the hostility is founded on social/political disparity. As GB was/is an inherent anti-Catholic society (in order to legitimize history), centuries of exploiting Northern Ireland ressources left behind a thorough social/political discrimination of the predominantly Catholic Irish native inhabitants.

History shows an abundance of societies with a peaceful coexistence of several religions. As long as there was/is no severe social/political discrimination correlated to religion.
frajo
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 24, 2010
it was driving home the point that progressives are cowards
You've been told that inductive generalizing over sets of people is intellectually not kosher. Nevertheless you carry on.
Somewhat funny, somewhat sad, somewhat alarming.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 24, 2010
it was driving home the point that progressives are cowards
You've been told that inductive generalizing over sets of people is intellectually not kosher. Nevertheless you carry on.
Somewhat funny, somewhat sad, somewhat alarming.

But the irony inherent in his chosen screenname is sublime.
freethinking
1 / 5 (8) Sep 24, 2010
sh - your a true believer in everything progressive and anti christian. Skeptics are the easiest to fool and to make into ardent believers. Do research on physicics and you know that they love people who self identity themselves as skeptics.

I did not generalize with muslims. I said most terrorists today are muslim, a true indisputable fact (unless your an progressive). If I said all muslims are terrorists or bad people that would be a generalization.

As for all progressives being ignorant cowards, I'll take that one back, there must be a least one progressive around that isn't ignorant or a coward. I just havent found any in Seattle or on this board.

Mass murderers generally do know about their victims, are you calling muslim terrorist stupid? They choose their victims, generally most innocent, least defended.

frajo you statement that all killers think their victims were going to kill them is so falsely wrong it's stupid.
freethinking
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 24, 2010
Some facts either not said by or known by progressives:
More people are killed by Islamists each year than in all 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition combined.
Islamic terrorists murder more people every day than the KKK has done in the last 50 years.
Islamic terrorists are active in India, Sudan, Algeria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Israel, Russia, Philippines, Indonesia, Nigeria, England, USA, Thailand, Spain, Egypt, Netherlands, Scotland, Canada, China, Argentina, Ukrain, and a whole lot more countries.

During the 2010 Ramada there were 226 Terror Attacks killing 1028 people. During that same time there was 1 terror attack against a christian by a hindu. (The victim deserved it, he converted from Hindu to Christianity. A very evil thing to do.)

Ok progressives keep believing that most terrorist attacks are done by Catholic Nuns.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Sep 24, 2010
sh - your a true believer in everything progressive and anti christian.
No, if that were the case I'd be a true believer in Judiasm and Islam, as well as a bunch of other completely ridiculous things.

I'm a firm believer in evidence being paramount.
I did not generalize with muslims. I said most terrorists today are muslim, a true indisputable fact (unless your an progressive).
Utterly hilarious. Deny one generalization and replace it with another. Don't forget to toss in that it is a "true indisputable fact" (as opposed to a false, often argued fact?) You are most certainly a polar opposite to the name you profess.

Go ahead and give us your evidence for that statement FT. Lay it on us. You say I'm antichristian, which isn't true, I'm an equal opportunity anti-theist. Just so you hear it again, stop projecting. You probably hate all people you consider "progressive", which thus far appears to be everyone who doesn't agree with you.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Sep 24, 2010
Let's talk about terrorism.

Terrorism is forcing someone to capitulate to your will and want by instilling fear in them.

What's the penalty for everything in Christianity? Eternal torment and torture. By dogma, Christianity is terrorism. Do I bring this up as a relevant point? No, certainly not. Especially as the majority of Christians don't actually believe in a hell of torment.

However, the ones who do, attempt to terrorize other people with statements of hell and target children, usually their own family members. Frajo's statement on killers doesn't speak to how unhinged the killers are, it speaks to the process of rationalization that killers go through. Evangelists do the exact same rationalization. By terrifying others with threats of hell and eternal torment they're commiting, at best, an immoral act. This is justified in the mind of the terrorizer by thinking "well if I scare them with hell, and they turn to religion, I've saved them, and done a good thing."
freethinking
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 25, 2010
SH your definition of terrorism is stupid. If a muslim says I'll go to hell for not believing in their religion, thats not terrorisim. If they want to behead me for not believing, thats terrorism.

I believe in Hell, I believe unless you are a christian you will go to hell. So you say I am a terrorist. Yet, I will not kill you or your children. I will not force you to believe. If you don't want to believe that is your choice and you will live with that choice.

You calling my belief stupid is not terrorism. If you burn down churches, prevent me from raising my children, placing me in jail for my belief that is terrorism.

Maybe that is why progressives are so pro muslim. They share the same anti-christian goals.
Skeptic_Heretic
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 25, 2010
SH your definition of terrorism is stupid. If a muslim says I'll go to hell for not believing in their religion, thats not terrorisim. If they want to behead me for not believing, thats terrorism.
Someone telling me to go to hell doesn't put me in a state of terror. Scaring the shit out of children with nightmarish imagery and threats for intellectual curiosity is.
I will not force you to believe.
No, you can't force me to believe. I know better, but you can scare a 4 year old into believing.
You calling my belief stupid is not terrorism.
I never did that anyway.
Maybe that is why progressives are so pro muslim. They share the same anti-christian goals.
I'm anti-theist, I view their superstitions in the same light that I view yours.
gwrede
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 25, 2010
Would you say that it's possible for, say, the North Korean leaders to recruit suicide bombers in order to coerce the world to give North Korea enough money to make them all rich?

Probably you'd say no. And so would I. The point being, to become a suicide bomber, you really do need to feel emphatic and desperate for your own people. It'd never work for oppression or offense.

Calling them terrorists simply diverts our attention to irrelevant things, way off the issue at hand. The human beings that do the bombing are not brainwashed drones, they really believe in the cause. (As opposed to some '60s horror flicks about hypnosis, brain wasing, etc.) And they have to be desperate enough to feel there's no other way.

Heck, if Hitler had invaded America, I bet many Americans would've become suicide bombers if it turned out there's no other way. Now, let me ask, who's the terrorist now?
Skeptic_Heretic
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 26, 2010
Probably you'd say no. And so would I. The point being, to become a suicide bomber, you really do need to feel emphatic and desperate for your own people. It'd never work for oppression or offense.
Actually, I'm sure KJI would have no problem recruiting suicide bombers. In DPKR he's set up a cult of personality for himself and removed the external influences of the other nations. When you keep people ignorant, they become credulous, and credulity is the basis for driving people to do things they would never consider.
Heck, if Hitler had invaded America, I bet many Americans would've become suicide bombers if it turned out there's no other way. Now, let me ask, who's the terrorist now?
The American revolutionaries did engage in acts of terrorism. There's a very thin line between terrorist and revolutionary, and that line is composed of historical victory. We won, so we wrote history from our perspective. If the English had won, it'd be a different story.
Quantum_Conundrum
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 26, 2010
This is justified in the mind of the terrorizer by thinking "well if I scare them with hell, and they turn to religion, I've saved them, and done a good thing."


SH:

By these statements and others you have here made, you proved that you know absolutely NOTHING about real Christianity.

First of all, no REAL christian evangelist would ever say to himself, "I've saved someone," as such is doctrinally and spiritually an impossibility, "Neither is there salvation in any other, For there is none other name (save Jesus,) given under heaven among men whereby we must be saved."( Acts 4:12, See also John chapter 10).

Hell and the lake of fire is the just punishment for sins committed. One cannot be "saved" by the fear of Hell or any other punishment, else muslims and Jews and others would be "saved" too.

Christians do not love Jesus because we are afraid of Hell. "We love him because he first loved us." (1 John 4:19)

I can go into a LOT more about this if you want truth.
Quantum_Conundrum
2 / 5 (4) Sep 26, 2010
Now it is true that Jesus came to save us from sin, and that the wages of sin is death, ultimately resulting in the "second death" which is the lake of fire and eternal seperation from God.

But the point is that man was supposed to love God to begin with. Therefore salvation is more than just, "Gee God I don't want to go to hell. Don't send me to hell, I'll do anything to get out of hell, God. Oh I just loooooove you Jesus..."

It's much more than that as we clearly see from the Sermon on the mount. When viewed through the lense of the sermon on the mount as well as 1 and 2 corinthians, we find that possibly the MAJORITY of modern people who call themselves Christians are simply false converts and have never had any change of heart or spiritual revelation of who God is and who Jesus is.
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Sep 27, 2010
Hell and the lake of fire is the just punishment for sins committed. One cannot be "saved" by the fear of Hell or any other punishment, else muslims and Jews and others would be "saved" too.
So you are not only ignorant in your own faith but ignorant of others' faiths. Jews don't have the concept of Hell.
I can go into a LOT more about this if you want truth.
Always funny to hear this comming from an evangelist.
we find that possibly the MAJORITY of modern people who call themselves Christians are simply false converts and have never had any change of heart or spiritual revelation of who God is and who Jesus is.
One would ask why you're not keeping the sabbath holy in that circumstance, and posting on a Sunday. Are you saying that you're a false christian, or are you saying all christians are false except you? Either way, you lose the debate.

That's the problem with your religion, there's no way to win without lying. Which is immoral.
freethinking
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 04, 2010
Cowardly progressive lying agains. Enrique Chagoya's "The Misadventures of the Romantic Cannibals," created in 2003, is a multipanel piece in which "cultural and religious icons are presented with humor and placed in contradictory, unexpected and sometimes controversial contexts,"

Since he is not in fear of his life I guess the religious icons are Christian. Oh, and by the way, its being displayed at a taxpayer funded institution. (I wonder if it was pro-christian if ahtiests and the ACLU would object?)

http://www.foxnew...-visits/

Be brave insult Muslims in art. How about placing Mohamid in those pictures?

freethinking
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 04, 2010
QC, SH does not want truth and hates christians.

I find it interesting that progressives hate christians so much. Christians are to (these are the ideals and goals) live quiet lives, live in peace with others, live controlled lives, respect laws and government, raise good families, help others, work hard, speak the truth. Yet progressives mock christians.

frajo
3 / 5 (2) Oct 05, 2010
I find it interesting that progressives hate christians so much.
You are generalizing and that's wrong. Because there are progressives who don't hate Christians or other believers.
Christians are to (these are the ideals and goals) live quiet lives, live in peace with others, live controlled lives, respect laws and government, raise good families, help others, work hard, speak the truth.
You are generalizing and that's wrong. Because there are Christians who hate and kill.
Yet progressives mock christians.
Some, but not all.

There's no correlation between belief/non-belief and individual character traits.
freethinking
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 05, 2010
frajo - I'll agree with you, you are right there are a few progressives that don't hate christians, however the progressived ideals are anti-christian.

I'll also agree that there are Christians who hate and kill, however if it wasn't clear, the ideals christians should live up to is to live quiet lives, live in peace... etc.

The progressives in power do mock, and when progressives gain power they live up to their ideals.
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (2) Oct 05, 2010
QC, SH does not want truth and hates christians.
No and no. I don't hate you, I pity you as I pity all literalists. That being said, not all christians are ignorant literalists.

I find it interesting that progressives hate christians so much.
Again, pity. In addition to that, many of who you call "progressives" are christian.
Christians are to (these are the ideals and goals) live quiet lives, live in peace with others, live controlled lives, respect laws and government, raise good families, help others, work hard, speak the truth. Yet progressives mock christians.
No, progressive mock conservatives, christians have aligned themselves with conservatives, therefore, you're mocked due to your fanatical status quo attitude.

Keep projecting your personal emotions onto a simple conversation. It's very telling of your character when you do so.

Keep in mind, when I say "your..." as in your religion, your views, your ideas I'm referring to FT, not to a group.
freethinking
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 05, 2010
When the progressives heresy takes over the leadership of christianty you get the inquisition and not christianity.

Progressives mock conservatives as progessive thought is one of the most stupid and evil belief systems around. The more a state becomes progressive the more evil they become. USSR was progressive, Cuba is progressive, China is progressive, North Korea is progressive, even Iran is progressive. The heart of progressivism is that the government thinks and acts for you. Which by the way was one of the slogans of East Germany.

BTW in Iran, the government controls education, the duty of the government is to furnish all citizens with equal and appropriate opportunities, provide citizens with work and to satisfy essential needs. Irans economy is central planning and state ownership of large enterprises. Sounds progressive to me.

Let me state again the truth, the more progressive a country becomes, the less freedom there is, and the more evil the government becomes.
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (2) Oct 06, 2010
When the progressives heresy takes over the leadership of christianty you get the inquisition and not christianity.
The inquisition wasn't progressive, it was a return to fundamentalism.
North Korea is progressive
You owe me a new keyboard. This was so hilariously deluded that it caused a spit-take.
Let me state again the truth, the more progressive a country becomes, the less freedom there is, and the more evil the government becomes.
So would you say that the Union pre and post civil war was evil? After all, abolishing slavery was pretty progressive. Do you think the movement to democracy from colonization was evil? That was a really progressive time. Do you think the Reagan and Nixon terms were evil evil times? Both quite progressive.

You've provided no evidence, just simple vitriol from a simple person who doesn't care to think for himself.
freethinking
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 06, 2010
Progressives support government intervention in the redistributing income. -North Korea believes this.

A study by progressives have shown that a Majority of Progressives would rather have equality than freedom. - North Korea anyone?

Progressives believe in Government controling what people do. - North Korea what do they believe? The prohibitist were mainly progressives. The inquisition was all about control.

Progressives place different value on different peoples lives, they are/were responsible for the eugenics movement. If you are an elite you have one value, if you are not, or if your defective you have a different value. (This is what allowed progressives to own slaves, this allows abortion, Jim Crow laws, and colonialism)
Simply put Progressives want the control peoples lives.

Conservatives believe in the least government possible with the least government intervention into peoples lives as possible. Conservatives believe all people have equal worth.
freethinking
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 06, 2010
I like Reagans quote. It isn't that Liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so much that isn't so.

How about Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem

Or, I notice that everbody who is Pro-Abortion already has been born.

or, How do you tell a Communist? Well, its someone who reads Marx and Lenis. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? Its someone who understands Marx and Lenin.

Today, I would replace Communist with progressives.
freethinking
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 06, 2010
SH I also find it funny you only thought North Korea isn't progressive, but USSR, China, Cuba, and Iran are.
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (2) Oct 06, 2010
FT: define your version of "progressive". I'm sure you're operating under a FOX news definition, while I'm not.
freethinking
1 / 5 (4) Oct 06, 2010
SK - whats your definition of progressive?
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (2) Oct 07, 2010
SK - whats your definition of progressive?

You first FT. After all, you were asked directly. Let's hear it.
freethinking
1 / 5 (5) Oct 07, 2010
SH - Scared to say what you stand for and what you believe? Why is it that Progressives are afraid to define what they mean and like to play with words?

For example a progressive would say they are compassionate. Many conservatives and most people think they know what the progressive means. For a conservative compassion is giving water to a person dying of thirst in a desert. For a progressive compassion is putting the mentally handicapped (or you name the sub-human class here) person in the desert to die.

What is encouraging is that in the USA people are waking up. Progressives play with words even simple words like IS (Clinton anyone).

So SH, you define what a you think a progressive is and what they believe.
freethinking
1 / 5 (5) Oct 07, 2010
Interesting quote I just found.
Conservatives and Christians commit the greatest evil when they fail live up to their ideals.
Progressives commit the gretest evil when they live up to theirs.
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Oct 07, 2010
SH - Scared to say what you stand for and what you believe? Why is it that Progressives are afraid to define what they mean and like to play with words?
Seeing as you were asked first, one must ask why you're stalling in such a manner. I'm not the one who uses the term so frequently, but you appear to act as though you have a firm grasp of the term.

Now what is your definition, I'll not ask again.
freethinking
1 / 5 (4) Oct 07, 2010
SH - If I make a definition, and you disagree with one small part, you will use that to show I'm wrong. So I'll ask you once again to give me your definition of progressive? Tell me what you believe? Do tell me who some of your progressive hero's are?

To show I'm not scared, here is some of what conservative believe in

Conservatives believe all government should be limited and be representative of the people.
Conservatives believe in free market economy.
Conservatives believe the role of the government is to protect the freedom of people so that the individual can pursue their own goals
Conservatives believe in traditional values and morals
Conservatives believe that all people regardless of age, handicap, usefullness to society are fully human.

There is more, but I'm waiting what you believe in.
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Oct 07, 2010
SH - If I make a definition, and you disagree with one small part, you will use that to show I'm wrong.
Why is it that Progressives are afraid to define what they mean and like to play with words?


Are you a progressive by your own definition?
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Oct 07, 2010
There is more, but I'm waiting what you believe in.
The rule of law, as the Republic is founded on.
freethinking
1 / 5 (4) Oct 07, 2010
SH - The rule of law or the constitution? If it is the constitution do you interpret it as Original Intent or as a Living document?
Conservatives interpret it as Original Intent, progressives interpret it as a living document.

Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Oct 07, 2010
SH - The rule of law or the constitution? If it is the constitution do you interpret it as Original Intent or as a Living document?
Conservatives interpret it as Original Intent, progressives interpret it as a living document.
The rule of law, which is the constitution and all ex pos facto ruling on the matter as determined by the binding clauses of the Constitution.

Now where is your definition. Or are you the very thing you accuse me of being?
freethinking
1 / 5 (4) Oct 08, 2010
If you ment ex post facto, then that is a very progressive ideal, and article 1 section 9 of the constitution goes against this as it states No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

It seems to me, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, you believe the constituion as a living document. If so, this is very progressive, and basically means the constituion means whatever the people in power wants it to mean. In other words it is meaningless as the rule of the land as the rules can chage expost facto.

An example would be that today by the constitution I can go to church without fear of going to jail. So on Sunday I go to church. On monday you change the law and re-interpret the constitution so that going to church is illegal, then you arrest me expost facto on Tuesday because the right is removed and I went to church on Sunday.
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Oct 08, 2010
If you ment ex post facto, then that is a very progressive ideal, and article 1 section 9 of the constitution goes against this as it states No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
That is a limit on Congress, not the Supreme Court. It is irrelevant to my point.
It seems to me, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, you believe the constituion as a living document.
Yes I do, as the Federalist papers state explicitly in many instances.
If so, this is very progressive, and basically means the constituion means whatever the people in power wants it to mean.
No, that's inaccurate. It means that the exact wording of the Constitution and all summary documentation added via the Constitutionally expressed means of addendum are upheld. It means that the Constitution can receive addition but never be overwritten or discarded. Your hypothetical would be a violation of the constitution, not an interpretation.

Now supply your definition of progressive.
freethinking
1 / 5 (4) Oct 08, 2010
I just want to clarify, two points first. If the constitution banned and the intent of the writers was to ban the governement from using metric measurements (just a dumb example), however without a constituional ammendment and only by judicial ruling or new law, the Government now uses metic, do you believe that is ok?

Second, what about changing meanings of words does that change the constituion. For example the historical meaning of the word Is -- is has always meant -- to be -- Since Cinton -- the word has changed meaning to something else. Do we change the constitution for the new meaning of the word?
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Oct 08, 2010
You'll need to retype that legibly in order to get an appropriate response. Second, where's your definition FT. You are defining yourself as a Progressive as so far.
Why is it that Progressives are afraid to define what they mean and like to play with words?
You are both "playing with words", and appearing afraid to define your favorite term of insult, "progressive"
freethinking
1 / 5 (4) Oct 08, 2010
SH, I agree that I need to retype the above. Too bad i have to earn money and have to work

Progessives in general believe the following:
It's racist to keep illegal immigrants out of the country.

The Supreme Court is to decide what is right and what is wrong - and it can get help for this by looking to each justice's own private standards of morality, to dominant cultural trends, and to foreign systems.

Abortion is an absolute, fundamental right that must remain inviolate.

Islamic terrorism is the work of a few people angry at the US

People cannot be trusted to make the right decisions with their money. It's better if the government takes and redistributes wealth, notwithstanding the fact that doing so slows the economy.

Traditional Christianity is dangerous and must be stifled at all costs, everywhere.

America is an imperialist bully that seeks to destroy non-white people, whether within or outside of America. Her power must be reined in at all costs.
freethinking
1 / 5 (4) Oct 08, 2010
Progressives believe that government is responsible for fulfilling all citizen needs in all ways. They also believe that the government's collective wisdom about individual interests is greater than individuals' own knowledge about themselves.

The risks associated with guns are so high that it is government's moral obligation to try to remove them from the population entirely, even if that effort is imperfect

Progressives believe that humans and society are products of their environment and, therefore, perfectible. The role of society is to mold people into better individuals and, ergo, better societies.

Progressives believe that every other culture is superior to American culture, so immigrants and ethnic enclaves should be encouraged to remain separate and distinct.

Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Oct 09, 2010
So you can go ahead and stop calling me a progressive as I don't fit over 80% of your definition.

If you'll take your fingers out of your ears for more than 10 minutes you'd recognize that. If you'd be interested in hearing my stance against what you've posited, you can be an adult and communicate with me via private messages so the abuse of this forum ends.
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Oct 09, 2010
Actually I'll lay it out here, as you'll fail to contact me in any event.
1. I think illegal immigrants should be kept out. I served as an INS bond agent for Aegis insurance for 3 years during college, I'm also a naturalized citizen of the country, and if I went through the system, they can too.
2. The supreme court is the final arbiter of the Constitution, selected by congress. They are just as fallible as the rest of us and when their opinion interjects with legal reason, they should be removed through an as yet non-existant process. (needs reform)
3.I agree with this, first trimester abortion isn't morally reprehensible in my mind and should be an inviolate right. I'm against mid and late term unless it is medically necessary as I agree that it is close to murder at that point.
4. I agree. I go further that all terrorism is the result of uneducated morons angry at the western world.
(Continued below)
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Oct 09, 2010
5. I think a fool and his money are soon parted, we need to teach economics at an early age in public schools to prevent corporatist bankers from abusing the people of the US. I do not see just taxation as redistibution of wealth and recognize the value of some social programs. (ask for specifics via PM). This healthcare bill is the wrong way to do it, no public option made the whole thing almost entirely useless.
6. Traditional Christianity is harmless, fundamentalist christianity is dangerous as it depends on ignorance. It would take a lot to define "traditional" christianity, but christianity in the US is far from traditional.
7. America is an imperialist bully, but we don't outwardly seek to destroy anything. We simply want to control world trade, and using force, as we do, is the wrong way to do it.
(continued below)
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Oct 09, 2010
8a. America is responsible to ensure its citizens are fed, clothed, medically cared for, and educated. Beyond that, citizens are on their own.
8b. That being said, the government does a very poor job of this, is inefficient in its current implmentation due to the maze of legalities. We need reform on our social services.
9. I think the Swiss have it right on this one. Everyone is required to keep a working fire arm, everyone is trained in how to safely operate firearms. It is a required duty of a citizen to safely control firearms in their presence. I'm a proud gun owner and SIGARMS licensed gun smith. I volunteer 1 saturday a month to teach gun safety.
10. I agree with this.
11. I think American culture has great benefits, and horrible detriments as do all other cultures. That being said, western culture on the whole, particularly American and British culture, is my preference.

Any further questions FT?
freethinking
1 / 5 (4) Oct 09, 2010
1. Great, we both agree. BTW I too immigrated.
2. The supreme court liberal justices believe the constitution is a living document and so can make it mean as they want.
3. Abortion no matter what age is killing a human. Putting different value on humans IS progressive.
4. Your stance makes no sense. They kill anyone (muslims terrorists kill more muslims than westerners)
5. We need to teach kids to think and question. The phrase just taxation is a progessive one.
6. Tradional Christianity IS Fundamentalist christianty. I understand you knowledge of Christianty is limited. I agree there is a lot of heresies in christianty today from Success theology, liberal theology, KJV only, and others. (Interesting thing is that these heresies keep cropping up throughout history.) The most dangerous to freedom is liberal theology as is gives justification to do evil, The other heresies typically is more dangerous to the christian church than directly to society.
freethinking
1 / 5 (4) Oct 09, 2010
7. A progressive idea that I disagree with
8a. Again a progressive idea. No where in the constitution does it say this.
8b. Many times when government tries to solve a social issue, they cause more harm, which then needs more government intervention.
9. We agree, All my kids know how to use a gun. When one of my kids who was 5 at the time went with me to a shooting range, the person behind the counter was impressed at his safety knowlege.
10. I disagree with this. This thought is a progressive thought
11. Western culture was based on Fundamentalist judeo-christian principles. The futher away it goes from these principles, the worse the culture becomes and less free we become.

Based on your answers, on the continuum, you are on the progressive side, however you do have some conservative beliefs.

Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Oct 10, 2010
fundamental Christianity is not traditional christianity. The fundamentalist movement got started in the 1800's. You know neither your religion, your Country's foundation, your politics, nor your Constitution.

Just an aside, how can you possibly say you think all people are equal when you define categorize and label people as you do?

You're a FOX news parrot with no ideology of your own.