Suicide Bombers

[fable]

First off: Gruntboy received three warnings from Buck for extensive flaming, and was banned after repeatedly promising he would stop without doing so. If you want to continue *that* discussion, take it directly to Buck in PMs, please.

Second, the mods know this thread is a very touchy issue. If anybody is severely offended by its discussion, there's a standard procedure to deal with it that everybody here, veterans of the board, understand: report it as a forum violation. This doesn't mean the thread would close, but it does mean we'd give it close attention and possibly do so. As it's happened repeatedly in the past, I'm sure there won't be any cynical snickers about its unlikelihood.

We were hoping this thread could be a way to initiate genuine discussion. Thus far, it's been a means to state contrasting positions with heat. So I'll take the first step: @Fas, when has the targeting and death of civilians ever worked historically as a method to create a nation? Why haven't the leaders that order suicide bombers focused instead on police, army and infrastructure?

To everybody else who has opinions but has never lived in either Israel or Palestine, I would ask: what other options should the Palestinians pursue that they haven't tried? Assuming you know what they have tried, in the past?

[CM]

I know many are extremely surprised by the comment, but i thought i would make it evident to start a discussion, since respect the views held by a majority of posters here and that many do not know how the average muslim feels.

I will explain my view point but i know a majority will neither accept it as justified or even believe it is justifiable. Suicide bombers arent there to achieve a pure goal or work towards something. They are simply a measure to create terror and make sure that the people of israel feel unsafe. That obviously has been achieved.

Targetting innocents and commiting suicide in Islam are haram ie sins. So these so-called martyrs will end up in hell. I dont agree with the moral justification or the so called religious one. There is no justification for the attacks. However they are an excellent military strategy to ensure that the their cause is not side lined.

Yesterday 8 palestinians were killed in a military incursion by the Israeli army. 8 civilians dead. Whether it was a suicide bomber or a military act, the end result is the same. Civilians die.

Neither is acceptable to either party nor can it be justified morally. It is not acceptable by legal international law yet it happens. I find no difference between 8 palestinian civilians dying to israeli bullets, than 8 israelis dying to a suicide bomber attack. Both target civilians. The end result is the same.

In the case of the suicide bomber the intention is obvious. With the israeli army it isnt. But the continious targetting of Palestinian civilains doesnt leave much to the imagination.

I stated that i find it an acceptable means of resistance. Because that is what i feel the Palestinian people are doing. They are resisting aggression on their lands. Legally defined by the US and accepted by all nations of the world, the West Bank and Gaza Strip are Palestinian territories. According to legal norms of warfare, land is returned at the end of a ceasefire. This did not happen in the case of Israel. The land was kept and the UN defined it as Palestinian land. If the Israeli army is going to excute military action in land that is not theirs, they should expect a resistance.

The Palestinian people are poor with no economy and no military training. They can not fight the Israeli army. It would suicide. So they choose to target the Israeli people. Just to point out the Israeli army targets palestinian people. Both sides do it. Yet the ones that get the majority of the blame are the Palestinian people.

Lets not forget Marwan Baghoti, a Palestinian diplomat who is currently being held illegally by the Israeli military intelligence as he was extremely popular and support Al Aqsa.

Now over the past two years i have become far more miltant in my views than before. During that period i have lost 2 friends to the israeli army. One sadly was part of the Seeds for Peace movement (one that believes in peace and not in the agenda of Hamas or Islamic Jihad and is a joint Israeli and Palestinian initiative).

Just to put things in the Muslim perspective:

1. The most repressive governments in the world: Saudi, Egypt, Turkey and Kuwait are solidly supported by the US.
2. The two most militarily advanced muslim nations are targetted as terrorist nations. Pakistan and Iran.
3. Israel is allowed to violate international law and conduct while muslim nations are condemned for actions of fringe luantic groups.

Even though i support Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hizbollah i do not support Al Qaeda. They are just a bunch of idiots with nothing to do to benefit the islamic ummah (society).

There are many more issues to be added but i guess this would be enough. I will try to respond to everybody's comments individually soon.

[fable]

According to legal norms of warfare, land is returned at the end of a ceasefire. This did not happen in the case of Israel.

@Fas, at the risk of grubbing in details, I would ask for some clarification. Are you stating that after a ceasefire is over and war resumes, land that's taken is automatically returned? This doesn't appear to make sense to me. Or do you mean that after a treaty has been signed, land is automatically returned? That last would be incorrect. Historically, one of two conditions are agreed upon by all parties to a treaty following an invasion: either the territorial lines that existed before the invasion are resumed, or the territorial lines that currently exist are acknowledged to be binding and legal. But again, all parties to the conflict must sign off on the deal.

[CM]

Fable according to practiced norms land is returned. This has happened in all cases of modern warfare. Land was returned in the Iran - Iraq war of the 80s. Land was returned in all Pakistan - Indian wars. The same allowed to all territorial conflicts in Africa.

Even though legally they has to be an agreement. Defacto following international practices the land should be returned. In either case the palestinian lands were not handed back to Jordan, Egypt or Syria.

In the first Arab - Israeli war, the Sinai pensula was taken by israel. later it was re-taken by Egypt. Following the norms of peace the lands should have been returned on both sides. That this a moot point.

Anyway legally the land has been defined by the UN as Palestinian terriotry, not israeli. Honestly from what i know of international law from my IR classes, what is practiced and what is written sometimes are not the same.

The practice was to return lands. Israel did not follow that practice so the UN defined it as Palestinian Territory.

[C Elegans]

@Fable: Just briefly, I haven't even read Fas new post (will do tonight)...but Fas must be referring to the Geneva convention, which is the international legal framework for war.

[fable]

Fable according to practiced norms land is returned. This has happened in all cases of modern warfare.

All cases? After WWI, for example, the Allied powers completely re-drew the boundaries of Europe as they wished, and did not return land they'd taken. After WWII, boundaries were redrawn again. When the Soviet Union invaded what became its satellite nations over time, the only one from which they withdrew was Afghanistan--and that was because it was an untenable war, not because of any recognized international principle. The rest of the satellites remained their de facto possessions.

Similarly, Indonesia invaded East Timor in 1975, and did not withdraw for approximately twenty-five years. They wouldn't have done so in any case, if the new Indonesian regime wasn't so anxious to show the world (and gain much needed financial support) that they weren't the old regime.

I'm not stating this take-and-keep idea is the only one, but that the idea of take-and-return isn't the sole operative international principle.

[Aegis]

My only comment on the matter.

As Malcom X once said: "By any means necessary"

I personally don't see many remaining means left for the Palestinian people. From what I understand, and please correct me if I am misguided, every other channel of getting their plight across, and attempts to make changes, have gone virtually ignored, both my the Isreali government, as well as the world stage.

If this is what they have to do in order to get attention, should we be condemning the suicide bombers, or ourselves for ignoring it until it reached this level of intensity.

[CM]

Fable according to WWII history the US, UK and Russia defined zones of influences. The states that the USSR took over were part of its zone of influence. However the boundaries were left in tact after the USSR left.

Also a majority of germany was left as it was. The boundaries though re-drawn, they were not that far off from the reality on the ground.

East Timor was not a war. It was one country taking over a territory once its colonial master left. There was not much of an armed resistance and there was no war. So the normal rules of war dont apply.

[Xandax]

Suicide bombers arent there to achieve a pure goal or work towards something. They are simply a measure to create terror and make sure that the people of israel feel unsafe. That obviously has been achieved.

But terrorisme have yet to cause any gains in any long term relations. Norht Ireland is still under UK control. The Basque country is still a part of Spain and Isreal still occupise the Western Bank. The US continues to run its forreign policy as they wish. Just to mention some of the terroristic areas.

I know that expecting such people to be rational is to much to demand, but terrorisme have never accomblished any long term strategic goals, on the contrary - all it does is turn otherwise neutral or possible friendlies against them.
The more bombs that are blown up in busses, resturants or anyother place where people gather - the less chance there will be for peacefull solutions.

And demanding that Isreal must stop their onslaughts while constantly bombing them, might not be a totally good idea either. Somebody have to take the first step - but each part always wants the other one to do that first. But stopping mindless terrorisme against innocent civilians might be one of the better places to start.
If anything they should target military objectives - but I guess such people responcible for terroristic acts aren't to comfetable with people that might fight back.

You can't blackmail the way to peace, it will never be constant and sure, but will always be uneasy and strained.

[fable]

Originally posted by CM
Fable according to WWII history the US, UK and Russia defined zones of influences. The states that the USSR took over were part of its zone of influence. However the boundaries were left in tact after the USSR left.

Not so. The boundaries between Russia and the Ukraine were withdrawn after WWII, for example. Bulgaria was allowed to keep Southern Dobrudja (which is a pretty nice place, except during the summer). Romania lost Bessarabia, the aforementioned S Dobrudja and nothern Bukovina. Yugoslavia got to keep almost everything it had seized from Italy, up to Trieste. Slovenia got sections of Italian land inhabited previously by Slovenias. Serbia was given lands that had formerly belonged to a host of nearby countries, plus part of Croatia-Slavonia. There was a lot of juggling of territory that went on there, however you cut it. The Soviet may have claimed they didn't redraw the maps for anybody. So what? Millions of people discovered otherwise; and it wouldn't be the first time that a government has made official proclamations which are in direct contradiction to the truth of the matter.

Also a majority of germany was left as it was. The boundaries though re-drawn, they were not that far off from the reality on the ground.

Your point was that "according to practiced norms land is returned. This has happened in all cases of modern warfare." My point is simply that yes, the redrawing of boundaries has repeatedly occurred. Germany applies as such an instance, both after WWI and WWII.

East Timor was not a war. It was one country taking over a territory once its colonial master left. There was not much of an armed resistance and there was no war. So the normal rules of war dont apply.

According to the Geneva Convention, an invasion does constitute an act of war, whether declared or not. W e can argue semantics, but I strongly suspect the inhabitants of East Timor and the UN saw it as such.

But this mini-thread is sorta wandering off the main topic. If you're willing to drop it, so am I.

[CM]

The PLO blackmailed their way to Oslo. The suicide bombings were the major cause of making sure Rabin agreed to the peace process.

If i remember correctly the suicide bombings started after the Israeli incursions.

Plus one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist. By todays modern day definition Mandela would be a terrorist. But would that be a fair definition?

[fable]

Originally posted by CM
Plus one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist. By todays modern day definition Mandela would be a terrorist. But would that be a fair definition?

Without going into any queasy attempt to define the word "terrorist," let's return to the issue of killing innocent civilians. Did Mandela ever do that?

[Xandax]

Originally posted by CM
The PLO blackmailed their way to Oslo. The suicide bombings were the major cause of making sure Rabin agreed to the peace process.

If i remember correctly the suicide bombings started after the Israeli incursions.

Plus one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist. By todays modern day definition Mandela would be a terrorist. But would that be a fair definition?

And what strategic goal did that bring? As far as I know the situation is not excatly better in the region.

As for the freedom fighter, I don't recall Mandela blowing up a bussfull of women and children, or resturants and so on for that matter.
Any so called "freedom fighters" that blows up busses full of innocent civilians, thereamongst women and children are terrorists by most accounts.

[CM]

As with World War 2, i honestly didnt know that the land was redrawn. I was taught that the boundaries remained the same so my bad.

But then Fable not all terrorists according to the US government kill innocents. The definition include charities that have been found to be money laundring outfits for terrorists in some cases without the knowledge of the owner.

With regard to Mandela. Mandela head up the ANC which had its miltant wing the Umkhonto we Sizwe which was responsible for the killing of people and innocents. Following todays definition yeah he would be a terrorist.

Question is following your thought process is Osama Bin Laden a terrorist as he never himself killed an innocent?

Fable East Timor is a similar case to Palestine and Kashmir. In all three cases land was taken but not returned and referred to the UN which marked them as indepedent territories. So if East Timor is legally seperate, then so are palestine and Kashmir.

Indonesia followed the the UNSC rulings with regard to East Timor and liberated the territory. Israel hasnt. Anyway i consider this a tangent but we can discuss this further if you want.

@Xandax the answer is this post to your question. Osama Bin Laden has never killed a innocent. He has helped plan the events and supported some others. Following your thinking and Fables would that mean he is not a terrorist?

Edit: Xandax what about military outfits that do the same? If both commit the same act both should be consider terrorists.

[fable]

Originally posted by CM
As with World War 2, i honestly didnt know that the land was redrawn. I was taught that the boundaries remained the same so my bad.

Hardly your fault. There's a double mindset at work, here. On the one hand, boundaries were redrawn: that's fact. On the other hand, none of the governments want to acknowledge boundaries were redrawn, because 1) the big guns who ordered it would look like bullies, and 2) the governments of the little guys who were forcibly redrawn didn't want to lose their positions, and possibly their lives, for speaking out. So the books show all the redrawing, and then state no such thing happened. I've seen this repeatedly occur in "official" histories, and it never ceases to amaze me. Another example: I once read a very thorough biography of the US president, Andrew Jackson, which meitculously detailed what a disaster he was to the economy (he closed the US federal bank) and what a genocidal monster he was to the native population, ordering the forced removal and slaughter of hundreds of thousands. Yet at the end of the book, the author noted (in my recollection), "However, all of that is in the past, and Jackson can now be looked back upon as a solid, intelligent, good leader, and a fine president of the US." Doublethink is scary.

But then Fable not all terrorists according to the US government kill innocents. The definition include charities that have been found to be money laundring outfits for terrorists in some cases without the knowledge of the owner.

This is irrelevant as I see it, here, but certainly meat for another thread.

With regard to Mandela. Mandela head up the ANC which had its miltant wing the Umkhonto we Sizwe which was responsible for the killing of people and innocents. Following todays definition yeah he would be a terrorist.

Right from it's beginnings, the ANC declared that it would avoid the killing of civilians. Documents of the 80's show that Joe Slovo, one of the heads of the Umkhonto we Sizwe, did attempt to determine which operatives-in-the-field were disobeying orders and bombing buses. The ANC wasn't cynically stating one thing and doing another: it had a network of cells that weren't always under the full command of its leaders. On the other hand, some of the Palestinian organizations we're discussing have specifically stated that civilians are a legittimate target. So has bin Ladan. This is a major difference, one of intent, and of laying down plans to be pursued by one's followers.