TigerHawk has a response to Richard Pape's book Dying to Win, in which the author seems to attempt a proof that suicide bombings are not the result of Islamic Fundamentalism but is driven by foreign occupation. I have not read the book yet, so I will dispense with any direct criticism of it, with one exception. In the article to which TigerHawk links, Pape is quoted thusly:
Prior to the US-led invasion-turned-occupation of Iraq, Pape said, there was “never in Iraq's history a suicide terrorist attack” but since then they double every year.
The problem with this argument is that the premise is a solecism. Pape uses here the theory of coincidental correlation, better known as the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc. He seems to be saying that as suicide bombings started only after the US occupation, it follows that the occupation "caused" the bombings. But as we know, correlation does not prove causation.
It is indeed possible that the focus of suicide bombers has shifted to Iraq because that is where the Americans are. However, the attacks inside Iraq are increasingly targeting Iraqi citizens and security forces. What is the occupying force that Pape is referencing? Is he saying that those Iraqis that are being blown up are mere proxies for the occupying armies? Is he also saying that the attacks of September 11 were a direct answer to US occupation in Muslim lands?
In making this argument, Pape has possibly accepted and aligned himself with the bin Ladenist view that attacks on innocent non-combatants are justified and will--and should--continue until the West retreats to its own lands. But as Islamists have unequivocally stated, they view Islam as ascendant and the conquest of the infidel to be a fait accompli.
The question then arises, which is the true occupying force? Western armies on traditional Muslim lands or Muslim immigrants in western countries?