Andy Thomson on Suicide Terrorism Part 3 of 3 (Q&A)

Q&A session after Andy Thomson's lecture "We Few, We Happy Few, We Band of Brothers." This lecture was hosted by The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science at AAI 2007 in Washinton, D.C. See more videos like this at http://RichardDawkins.net

Video by
The Richard Dawkins Foundation

Camera:
Wayne Marsala
Josh Timonen

Edited by
Josh Timonen

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Andy
• Thomson
• Richard
• Dawkins
• Science
• Reason
• Atheism
• Suicide
• Terrorism
• bombing
• psychology
• psychiatry

[SF3sfan]

I likely to see a debate between Andy Thomson and Robert Pape.

Because i just watched a video of Robert Pape named "Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism" and he claims the opposite what Andy Thomson is saying.

[noonesflower]

Guedingen, I agree. He's a con. He completely takes the official explanation of 9/11 a priori, as granted, questioning nothing about it. If the 9/11 attacks were proved to NOT have been perpetrated by those hijackers, then his expertise on the suicide tendencies of the alleged hijackckers loses its present relevance as in this talk.

[callmeal84]

Why did Atran change? Because he did more research.

[DeuceDecker]

@spinycrayfish

The question is why was he sent to prison in the first place? Selling felafel without a permit? The glaring fact that he was a islamist before he ever went to prison in the first place is being ignored. The notion that his ideology was formed after he was in prison and to presume, or forward the idea, that he was no an Islamist before hand is not only ludicrous it is ignorant to the point of being dangerous as well as it is intellectually dishonest.

[spinycrayfish]

@DeuceDecker

I would say reached rather than leaped in this instance. These people are experts in psychology and as such understand human nature. There is the factor I've already mentioned. People fight to overcome resistance. The harder something is, especially in religion/ideology, the more determined they become. Thus being locked in a prison and tortured exacerbates the problem rather than solving it. Also, by your timeline theory, there's the fact his major works were written from prison.

[spinycrayfish]

@DeuceDecker

I would say reached rather than leaped in this instance. These people are experts in psychology and as such understand human nature. There is the factor I've already mentioned. People fight to overcome resistance. The harder something is, especially in religion/ideology, the more determined they become. Thus being locked in a prison and tortured exacerbates the problem rather than solving it. Also, by your timeline theory, there's the fact his major works were written from prison.

[DeuceDecker]

@spinycrayfish

Additionally, it takes a level of knowledge on the subject of suicide terrorism and its underlying factors to discuss the topic in a meaningful way.. Most people in this forum dont have that level of knowledge or interest in the topic of terrorism. This event is like someone to explaining economics without even the concept of math, then convincing themselves that they have a point because the audience is just as il informed as they are.

[DeuceDecker]

@spinycrayfish

Perhaps as much of an oversimplification as dismissing the ideology of Qutb and his ilk before going to prison? If the people participating in this discussion as self described experts dismiss the factors i described they are being intellectually dishonest or simply not thinking. If you want to talk about time line and sequence lets ask how the blowhard that asserted that Qutb was "created in Nassar's prisons" leaped to his conclusion.

[spinycrayfish]

@DeuceDecker

How do you leap to that conclusion? Neglecting the role of prison is a touch naive. It's proven fact that prison life either leads people to religion, or in this case reinforce beliefs and strengthen resolve. To simply look at a timeline and then dismiss opposing arguments seems an oversimplification.

[Drgamedood]

@SF3sfan I'd also like to see Robert Spencer and Sam Harris take on Pape. It would be an interesting debate.