Ron And Rand Paul Duel Over Root Causes Of Charlie Hebdo Attack

[jmdrake]

Did you or did you not read my statement that it would have been "difficult" (particularly for people living in third-world countries) to obtain bombs? To your understanding, is "difficult" synonymous with "impossible"? Suicide bombing by militant Muslims is relatively new because possession of bombs by militant Muslims with a motivation to commit that sort of attack is relatively new; do you really want to try to make controversy over something as plain and reasonable as this? That there have been many militant Muslims committing violence and aggression for essentially the same reasons the current ones do (from imperialistic expansionism to reaction against violent provocation to the targeting of those who have spoken/written against Islam) is easily verifiable. Tactics change with technology, access, and circumstances.

The Ottoman Empire had easy access to explosives in World War I. So did the Bedouin Muslims that Lawrence of Arabia successfully used against the Ottoman Empire. These Muslims, in the employ of the British Empire, went around blowing up trains and rail lines and never used the suicide bombing technique. The first known use of a suicide bomber was by Russian communists in 1881. (I don't know what kind of virgin laden paradise an atheist goes to.) The next notable use of suicide bombers were the Japanese kamikaze pilots. Muslims didn't really catch on to suicide bombing until the successful attack on the marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983. (See http://origins.osu.edu/article/human-use-human-beings-brief-history-suicide-bombing) That doesn't mean they didn't have explosives. The PFLP (run by an Arab Christian, but with times to Muslims) blew up an airplane back in 1970. So the idea that Muslims didn't use suicide bombings early on because the didn't have access to explosives is a fallacy.