08-27-2003, 07:24 PM
Martyrdom has been a method of conflict resolution that is pretty old in the context of human civilization. Typically, the martyr's death is tied to an idea, either intentionally or unintentionally, and is used as a cornerstone to sustain an emotional base for change.
To call martyrdom stupid is, in my opinion, to assume that all persons have the same world view.
I am, and have been, willing to risk dying and killing for my country, as have many others. What I want to have a chance at, though, is to be alive to see how it all comes out. Thus also with the Ghandi and King example: they risked being hurt or killed based on principle, but I expect that they wanted to have the chance that they would see the fruits of their efforts while still among the quick.
The deliberate martyrdom in suicide bombing is motivated by a different frame of reference. He cares not whether he sees the change take place or not, just so long as his death "makes a difference" and his adversary bleeds at least as much as he does. It is a very negatively based approach, in that it requires negative energy for success.
Consider the Kamikaze. When that was resorted to, I'd paraphrase the thought process behind it thuswise:
Nothing else seems to be working, we are dying in this war anyway, take a few more of them with you on the way down. Make him bleed hard enough and you may stop him. If they see how dearly we will sell our lives, maybe they will not have the stomach for more fighting. Or, "If you're gonna lose, go down swinging!"
To call martyrdom stupid is, in my opinion, to assume that all persons have the same world view.
I am, and have been, willing to risk dying and killing for my country, as have many others. What I want to have a chance at, though, is to be alive to see how it all comes out. Thus also with the Ghandi and King example: they risked being hurt or killed based on principle, but I expect that they wanted to have the chance that they would see the fruits of their efforts while still among the quick.
The deliberate martyrdom in suicide bombing is motivated by a different frame of reference. He cares not whether he sees the change take place or not, just so long as his death "makes a difference" and his adversary bleeds at least as much as he does. It is a very negatively based approach, in that it requires negative energy for success.
Consider the Kamikaze. When that was resorted to, I'd paraphrase the thought process behind it thuswise:
Nothing else seems to be working, we are dying in this war anyway, take a few more of them with you on the way down. Make him bleed hard enough and you may stop him. If they see how dearly we will sell our lives, maybe they will not have the stomach for more fighting. Or, "If you're gonna lose, go down swinging!"
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete