AH Challenge: Christian Suicide Bombers

The Tamil Tigers perfected suicide bombing to an art formm. Ironically, they were very anti-Islamic and went as far as to banish Muslims from their land.

It's ironical only from that kind of mainstream perspective that sees suicide bombing as Muslim stuff.
Which largely is not, certainly not exclusively.
Oh, and there is at least on instance of an early "Christian" suicide bomber, who is quite revered as a national hero in Italian historical narratives. But his action had little to do with Christianity as a faith.
 
Maybe if you transplanted Caprica onto our planet...? Polytheistic world with minority of monotheistic adherents (Jews, Christians, etc)... Eventually, whatever polytheistic faiths are dominant in modern history begin to look on monotheists very disapprovingly with pogroms and the like... Reaction is to turn to martyrdom via suicide as a way of punishing the idol worshippers?
 
Maybe if you transplanted Caprica onto our planet...? Polytheistic world with minority of monotheistic adherents (Jews, Christians, etc)... Eventually, whatever polytheistic faiths are dominant in modern history begin to look on monotheists very disapprovingly with pogroms and the like... Reaction is to turn to martyrdom via suicide as a way of punishing the idol worshippers?

Maccabeans IOTL, more or less?
 
By the way, the Tamil movement in Sri Lanka had already resorted to similar tactics. They are more or less Marxist, but they come out of a mostly Hindu ethnic group.
Correct me if I am wrong but I thought that Tamils, while nominally Hindu, generally practice a weird form of Islamo-Hindu syncretism, no?
 
Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade.

I'm not an expert on their rhetoric and policy, but as far as I remember they never got close to the length Hamas did in legitimizing suicide bombing or even using that tactic that much.
Also, Arafat's leverage unto them seems to have been rather limited at times on the operational side.
But yes, I wasn't thinking of them. Secular Palestinian organitions generally didn't averse to it.
 
But armies of Catholics and Protestants butchering one another's children, for centuries, didn't fly in the face of Christian doctrine?

I doubt that really came into the politics of the various wars of religion during the Reformation era. Though you have to remember that there is nothing in the Christian Gospels (or Bible for that matter) saying you have to be a pacifist.

That and as for butchering one another's children....um what? Sure groups butchered civilians and sacked cities, but that was par for the course in warfare almost to the 17th century! I really don't think you have a good grasp of these conflicts.

What were the Crusades, then?

Muslims also believe that suicide is an utterly unpardonable sin--they only make an exception for the shahid. One possible way to do this is to move the Reformation up a bit. IIRC the suicide teachings come more from the catechism than the Bible canon, so weaken its cultural influence a bit earlier?

To the bolded: A centuries long series of events which has multiple political, cultural, and religious issues that only and idiot would try and simplify as 'wars of religion'.

And as to the shahid, it is seen as honorable to die in battle (ie sacrifice ones self in war) but you will find nowhere anything about the highly destructive, and frankly murderous suicide bombings. That would be (and is) frowned on. I'm quite sure the Muslims in Iraq are thrilled when an insurgent blows up rush hour traffic and vaunt him as a martyr.

As to getting rid of suicide in the Christian tradition as a sin, it's still IMPOSSIBLE from any point of view. As you said yourself it was catechism, so it would vary by region, group, and individual practioner about how they would feel about it.

I'm sure that most average Muslims would have said the same prior, say, 1990, and many would still, about their own religion.

The most average Muslim would still say it. Suicide bombers are not a dime a dozen in most places. They are an active menace, but you don't see people lining up to blow themselves to smithereens in the name of Allah do you?
 
Crazy thought, but what if the Gunpowder plot succeeded, the instigators died in the attempt, and hardline Catholics force the Pope to adopt a casuistry that justifies the act. In fact, the dude gets beatified or something. This could be the thin edge of the wedge that gets widened later on when the technology is more apt.
 
That and as for butchering one another's children....um what? Sure groups butchered civilians and sacked cities, but that was par for the course in warfare almost to the 17th century! I really don't think you have a good grasp of these conflicts.
What I was illustrating is that people who professed to be fundamentalist, Bible-believing Christians did not in any way elevate themselves above the standard war practices of the day, even when the differences between the groups were fairly minimal (by the standards of today). No there were no real religious grounds for these barbaric practices but those who committed these atrocities (i.e. most combatants in the 1600s) would have come up with some cockamamie quasi-theological grounds for them nonetheless.

To the bolded: A centuries long series of events which has multiple political, cultural, and religious issues that only and idiot would try and simplify as 'wars of religion'.
I'll overlook the possible insult and simply ask a question. What were the Crusades if they were not radical, fundamentalist Catholics attacking radical, fundamentalist Muslims, and Jews that never really did anything to anybody except exist? No they were not only about religion and holy warfare and martyrdom but they were the proving ground in which subsequent ideals in these areas tested and refined. They were justified by each respective side (Christian and Muslim) on theological grounds and even if at times that theological basis was but a fine veneer for nationalistic pillaging, they were accepted by the church and mosque of the day.

And as to the shahid, it is seen as honorable to die in battle (ie sacrifice ones self in war) but you will find nowhere anything about the highly destructive, and frankly murderous suicide bombings. That would be (and is) frowned on. I'm quite sure the Muslims in Iraq are thrilled when an insurgent blows up rush hour traffic and vaunt him as a martyr.
I don't think a resident of Gaza would get too far if he publicly denounced the art of suicide bombing...

As to getting rid of suicide in the Christian tradition as a sin, it's still IMPOSSIBLE from any point of view. As you said yourself it was catechism, so it would vary by region, group, and individual practioner about how they would feel about it.
So, like I said, move up the Reformation so fewer Christians feel beheld to RCC traditional teachings on suicide and the like.

The most average Muslim would still say it. Suicide bombers are not a dime a dozen in most places. They are an active menace, but you don't see people lining up to blow themselves to smithereens in the name of Allah do you?
In the Second Intifada it was quite common. I seem to recall that the Mossad was foiling something like 100 "martyrdom" plots for every one that actually succeeded.
 
What I was illustrating is that people who professed to be fundamentalist, Bible-believing Christians did not in any way elevate themselves above the standard war practices of the day, even when the differences between the groups were fairly minimal (by the standards of today). No there were no real religious grounds for these barbaric practices but those who committed these atrocities (i.e. most combatants in the 1600s) would have come up with some cockamamie quasi-theological grounds for them nonetheless.

I'll overlook the fact that you're clearly a lazy scholar when it comes to terms here. Fundamentalist is not an accurate or even relevant term to apply to Christians before the late 1800s (the term fundamentalist in fact was not coined until the early 1900s). And define differences as minimal? There are different languages, nations, political interests, and dynasties all involved in these wars and generals who ranged from chivalrous to outright barberous. You're making an honestly foolish mistake of lumping together everyone who would be a Christian and assuming that means 'good person'.

As to theological grounds, there really were none. Sure the Catholics believed the various Protestants were heretics (as did the rulers of Catholic nations who (suprise suprise) saw this as an easy excuse to wipe these groups, who also had very different ideas about politics usually, off the map) and would react as such. But the battles and war were very much just as war is today.


I'll overlook the possible insult and simply ask a question. What were the Crusades if they were not radical, fundamentalist Catholics attacking radical, fundamentalist Muslims, and Jews that never really did anything to anybody except exist? No they were not only about religion and holy warfare and martyrdom but they were the proving ground in which subsequent ideals in these areas tested and refined. They were justified by each respective side (Christian and Muslim) on theological grounds and even if at times that theological basis was but a fine veneer for nationalistic pillaging, they were accepted by the church and mosque of the day.

Again I'll note lazy scholarship (and your pretty obvious bias) and say this, the idea that it was a purely religious war is hokum, absolute hokum. Having read extensively about these conflicts I can honestly tell you that the Pope would not have given a rat's ass about who held Jerusalem unless the opportunity presented him with a political possibility and a practical one. It did on both counts. It allowed him to direct the rulers of Europe away from fighting one another (and questioning Papal authority, conveniently) and to unite them all under a vaguely holy mission with Papal authority giving him a moral trump card. That and of course it put the Byzantines in his debt.

I could go on about the other Crusades (discounting the 8th and 9th which were both horrible ideas) but that would require volumes of words.


I don't think a resident of Gaza would get too far if he publicly denounced the art of suicide bombing....

Gee a terrorist organization with a quasi religious veneer over its overt political tyranny. Golly I never would have thought that :rolleyes:


So, like I said, move up the Reformation so fewer Christians feel beheld to RCC traditional teachings on suicide and the like.

Moving the Reformation up is not going to invalidate centuries of religious feelings. Suicide is still considered a sin in MANY Christian groups (not just Catholocism) today. Point in case many Methodists actually view it as a sin.


In the Second Intifada it was quite common. I seem to recall that the Mossad was foiling something like 100 "martyrdom" plots for every one that actually succeeded.

If that's an actual number and not some guy inflating it for an interview still not unsurprising, especially considering where this is taking place. There are a few large demographic reasons for why this is.
 
There were Maronite suicide bombers during the Lebanese civil war if I recall correctly, and also Palestinian Christians that were part of the PFLP (radical communist-nationalist organization).
 
All honesty you could only get this out of a radical group, and probably a small crazy one at that. I do have one possible idea, but even that is a long shot. Maybe importing Christianity to a place that culturally reveres suicide as a part of its military mindset. At risk of sounding totally ignorant, I think that means introducing it to feudal Japan most likely. Have them Christianize, and then make their own cultural modifications to the doctrines on suicide. After that they just need to enter a war with a non-Christian country in an era where bombing is a practical possibility, since OTL Japan was certainly open to suicide bombings up to WW2.
 
If persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire never ended or even intensified, or if the Muslim invasions of Europe were more successful, Christianity may be marginalized/repressed enough for "matyrs" to garner respect among mainstream Christians, although Christianity itself wouldn't be mainstream, and there would be too many butterflies to count.

Perhaps some anti-religious policy implemented by Stalin leads to anti-Communist Orthodox Christian suicide bombers in the U.S.S.R. respected by more fundamentalist Christians for their courageous struggle against the godless red colossus?
 
Right, I'll give this a go.

Christian Doctrine:

Generally views suicide as a sin, however the Christian doctrine is open to MASSIVE interpretation by groups, as is Islam, Judaism etc. How someone interprets the Bible can be wildly different from how someone else determines the Bible. Is it impossible to get people to believe that dying in the name of God is a good thing? With enough spin, you can get people to believe anything. Whether you can get people to follow through is a whole different kettle of fish which brings me to my next point.

Desperation:

One thing people need to remember, suicide bombing is a desperate tactic. Killing your own soldiers in hopes of killing more of the enemy at the same time is not the best way to go. It shows genuine desperation in the face on an enemy that is probably much stronger than you, and is not one that is resorted to lightly. It also relies on a person overcoming the most powerful of all instincts, the instinct to survive. It takes a lot to remove this or override it, and only those very devoted to something (or believe they have absolutely nothing let to live for) consider this.

So! What do you need get Christian suicide bombers? You need desperate circumstances, which breed desperate people, which in turn breeds a desperate form of Christianity, which resorts to desperate tactics to protect itself from a strong enemy. That is essentially what has happened in the Middle East. People in desperate situations, have resorted to desperate measures and a motivating factor is a radical interpretation of Islam. You need similar factors.
 
Top