Suicide Bombers

[Xandax]

Originally posted by CM
<snip>

@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.

Well - if it was Osama that launched and funded and planned the attacks on the US - yes, he is a terrorist. Show me some evidence that Mandela planned, funded and launched possible acts of terrorisme. (Other then there was a militant wing of ANC)


The military outfit that targets and kills innocent civilians is terrorist also, yes. Nobody in their right mind would not claim that for instance the SS in Russia didn't perform terrorisme while killing countless of innocent civilians.
But we aren't talking about military outfits - we are talking about organisations devoted to wiping out civilians, to achive their goals.

I better leave this topic, before I start to say something I will regret. I find it disturbing that somebody in common sence will support such murderes. I think almost all (maybe except some of these militant terroristic organisations, that only wnat total victory) want a solution for the better of mankind, but blowing up busses with women and children will not accomplish much.

I surly hope nothing good ever will come of such sencesless murdering, I shudder at the thought of what can come of that.

[Mysteria]

First party: "They're killing our compatriotes, let's go kill theirs!"

Second party: "They're killing our compatriotes, let's go kill theirs!"

First party: see above ...

Yeah, right, great conflict solving.

"There's two things that have no boundaries: The universe and human stupidity ... although I'm not 100% sure about the universe ..."

[CM]

I would like to ensure that i dont have a monoploy on any views that pertain to muslims so i started a thread on a pakistani web forum.

The link is:

http://www.gupistan.com/forums/showt...hreadid=137267

It has a very large politics section, but be warned if you read it. My nick there as here is CM. Feel free to join up but be warned it aint a great place.

Personally i would not want it to be mentioned that i post here. I like this forum and i am far more myself here. Not the flamer i am on that forum. I post my true opinions here, instead what i do to flame and entice people there. So if you do join up could i please request that you not mention that i post here or gamebanshee.

Feel free to say you know me if you guys feel i am worth even that much after this thread. But know you will be stereotyped.

Anyway once that is a poll you can see what muslims living in the west think. I dont want to be speaking on behalf of 1 billion people.

[Zelgadis]

An interesting opinion I saw on the board CM linked to was that suicide bombing against military personnel would be more acceptable than against innocent civilians. This seems strange to me, in both cases aren't people being killed? Does anyone here share that view, and if so can you tell me what differentiates the two?

[Morlock]

Originally posted by CM
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.

A bit of history:

The first Arab-Israeli war was from 1947-1949, Israel's war of Independance. The Arabs attacked the day after the partition plan was approved, which was understandibly unacceptable to the Arabs. But what were the Arabs planning, if not conquering Israel and staying there for good?

In 1956 Israel attacked Egypt because Nasser wouldn't allow any access to the Israeli port of Eilat through the red sea. Israel conquered the Gaza strip, the entire Sinai Peninsula, the straits of Tiran and, together with France and England, also conquered the Suez canal. France and England offered a truce plan, approved by Israel, but which Nasser didn't agree to, after which he called for a general subscription. Israel responded, and beat the Egyptian army.
Ben-Gurion anounced the day after fighting ceased that Israel would evacuate the entire peninsula, with stipulation that no international forces would be placed on Israeli land after the evacuation.
The U.S.S.R and China threatened to send over half a million troups there to force Israel out, while France, The U.K. and The U.S.A said that they in turn would send their own forces, and for a time it seemed to be the setting for a mini world war.
In a two point plan, Israel evacuated all land conquered the the exception of Gaza strip. A U.N. vote of 74 to 2 called for Israel to complete the evacuation, and in a quiet night operation, the Israeli army evacuated Gaza.

In May 1967, Nasser demanded that the U.N. remove all forces from the area. Immeidatly after the U.N. evacuated, Nasser sent thousands of soldiers to the border. On May 22nd, Nasser closed the straits of Tiran to Israeli ships, something that could eventualy criple Israeli trade.
On June 5th, after Egypt and Jordan signed a defence agreement, Israel, fearing an attack, launched a first strike. Within 8 hours, Israeli planes totaly destoryed the Egyptian air force, the Jordanian air force, 2/3 of the Syrian air force, and an airport in Iraq. Within 6 days, Israel conquered The Golan Heights from Syria, the West Bank (Including the old City and east Jerusalem) from Jordan, The Gaza strip and the Sinai peninsula from Egypt.
Israel declared that it would totaly evacuate all lands captured if Egypt, Syria and Jordan would officialy acknowledge Israel's right to exist, which they refused to do. Nasser resigned, but his resignation was not accepted by the Egyptian people.

On October 6th 1973, Yom Kippur, Egypt and Syria attacked Israel, and Israel suffered great losses and after Several counter offences failed, and Israel faced defeat. But within a few days, Israel regrouped, and initially held off the offensive, and later pushed on into Syria, stopping less than 30 miles from Damasscus, and in the south, pushed through and managed to totaly incircle the Egyptian 3rd army, which numbered 20,000 troups.
A truce was reached on the 23rd of October, but the 3rd army kept on attacking, trying to breach it's way through the canal, and the Egyptian air force attacked, but all planes attempting to breach were shot down. Israel released a lot of the captives, and, following a request by the Red Cross evacuated 2000 wounded Egyptian soldiers.
On November 11th an official 6 point truce was signed. The two countries agreed to A. A total cessation of hostilities B. Negotiations must begin to returning to the October 22nd borders C. Israel is to allow a daily supply of food and medicine to the city of Suez D. Israel is to allow non military supplies to the 3rd army E. The U.N. would send troups to guard the road from Suez to Cairo and F. Prisoner exchange must begin immediatly.
On November 15th, the prisoner exchange began. Within a week, 241 Israeli prisoners were freed, as were 8,301 Egyptian soldiers and 3 Iraqi pilots. Israel lodged a complaint with the U.N., stating the dozens of soldiers that were captured healthy were murdered after the truce was reached.

In 1979 a piece plan signed with Egypt, and in 1982 Menchem Begin, the first right wing Israel PM, evacuated the Sinai peninsula, drawing huge critisism from supporters.

[dragon wench]

Originally posted by Zelgadis
An interesting opinion I saw on the board CM linked to was that suicide bombing against military personnel would be more acceptable than against innocent civilians. This seems strange to me, in both cases aren't people being killed? Does anyone here share that view, and if so can you tell me what differentiates the two?

I don't necessarily support this POV, but I believe the argument is that military personnel, given the nature of the job, should expect to become targets...

Though... given that military service is compulsary in Israel (please correct me if I'm wrong Morlock ) I don't think the argument holds much water....

[smass]

An interesting opinion I saw on the board CM linked to was that suicide bombing against military personnel would be more acceptable than against innocent civilians. This seems strange to me, in both cases aren't people being killed? Does anyone here share that view, and if so can you tell me what differentiates the two?

War is hell. War means killing folks. Conflict between combatants in a war is one thing - killing non-combatants - intentionally is quite another.

Lets not be coy here. The US, Israel, and any other nation that has waged war has killed innocents. You don't drop a 10,000 pound bomb on a military target with any guarantees that civilians will not be harmed. In the best of all worlds (a "Candide" reality) there would be no such thing as war. In reality - war is an all to common fact of life.

There is a not so subtle difference between the collateral damage that war inflicts on innocents and the premeditated, intentional murder of innocents. I, quite frankly, find it impossible to condone murder for any cause. I fact, I find the whole idea so incomprehensible and abhorrible that it scares the **** out of me. How do you reason, negotiate, or come to any kind of agreement with people who have no regard for or respect for your right to keep breathing?

The intent of suicide bombers is to terrorize at any and all costs up to and including blowing up babies and children. CM has as much as said this verbatim. People who think this way cannot be negotiated with - if someone draws a knife or a gun to kill me or my family - you bet I will do my best to kill him first. I will engage him in mortal combat. I will not go into a restuarant where his sons and daughters are eating a meal with their mother and set off a bomb and kill them.

How does a human being get to the point where murder is a viable option? Answer = hate. Hate manifested in racism requires the de-humanization of ones enemy. Justifications for hate are often cultural - but usually religious in nature. More people have been killed in the name of religion than any other cause. Typically the religious fanatic feels his own view of the world is the only one - and justify's his actions using the us vs. them mentality. The world to them is made up of two groups - believers and unbelievers. Jews and gentiles. Muslims and Infidels. Once a person begins thinking in these terms the next step is to consider non-believers to be less than human - and to not value their lives - thus justifying murder.

Truly a scary thought.

[Morlock]

Originally posted by CM
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.

If they stopped the bombings, they'd be morally right. No one would have any reason to not support a Palestinian state 100%.

And for the record- I am totaly for a Palestinian state, including total evacuation of all settlements.
But this is only for a Palestinian state- I am totaly against giving the Golan heights to Seria.

Originally posted by CM
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.

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.

First of all, it was 9 or 10 Palestinians. And only five of them were innocent civilians caught in the crossfire. Three School children and one bystander were killed. The other people killed were militants who were going to be arrested but fired back at the soldiers.
All 10 of the Israelis killed this morning were innocent civilians, perpusley targeted.

Originally posted by CM
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.

He has personally planed several suicide bombings. Only someone who supports suicide bombings could call him a diplomat.
And Arafat black mailed Rabin in Oslo, and then abused the deal by giving the guns given to him for the Palestinain police to Hamas to kill Israelis. And Rabin was killed for it.

Originally posted by Mysteria
First party: "They're killing our compatriotes, let's go kill theirs!"

Second party: "They're killing our compatriotes, let's go kill theirs!"

First party: see above ...

Yeah, right, great conflict solving.

"There's two things that have no boundaries: The universe and human stupidity ... although I'm not 100% sure about the universe ..."

A biased observation:
True this is a stupid way of thinking, but I look at it this way. The Palestinians kill Israeli civilians, and praise the killers. The Israel enters Plestinian cities, detains and/or kills known militants, with several innocent bystanders killed by mistake. Israel sends an apology and creates an inquery board, and for a few weeks or months, there is relative quiet. Israel eases restriction, eventualy leaving the town. Palestinians send in suicide bombers, killing innocent civilians. Israel enters Palestinian cities, there is relative quiet, Israel eases restricions, Palestinians attack again.
Note- the Palestinians attacks don't drop for lack of trying, but because of the increased efficiency of the Israeli army. And I think the best argument for the security fence -which I am against right now, but totaly for if it leaves the settlements with the Palestinians- is that less innocent civilians on both sides (although mostly Israelis) were killed in 2003 than 2002.

Originally posted by Zelgadis
An interesting opinion I saw on the board CM linked to was that suicide bombing against military personnel would be more acceptable than against innocent civilians. This seems strange to me, in both cases aren't people being killed? Does anyone here share that view, and if so can you tell me what differentiates the two?

I am (as you can naturally deduce) a very proud Israeli, very proud of my army, which I believe to be the best, most proven and the most moral army in the world. Of course- one of the main complaints is it's lack of morality but I say this:
A. The army carries out the orders and policies of the government.
B. I believe that any other army in the world under similar circumstances would be less apologetic, more violent, and more civilains would be killed. Last year, (in august, I believe) the Israeli army got info that the heads of the Hamas, including spiritual leader Ahmed Yassin, were meeting at a certain building in Ramalla (I believe it was Ramalla). Once in the past, Israel used a 1 kilo bomb to assassinate a leading member of a terrorist group, and in doing so, killed several innocent civilians. So in August, even though there was concrete proof that the heads of the group most detrimental to Israel's security would be at a certain place at a certain time, Israel used a 1/4 kilo bomb, in an attempt to reduce civilain fatalities. It was not enough, and all the leaders of Hamas got away. But the point is, even in face of the possible eradication of the leadership of Hamas, Israel learned from it's previous errors, and used a significantly smaller bomb, which was succesfull in avoiding civilian fatalities.
I doubt that any other country would risk not killing off it's leading terrorists in face of civilain casualties.

Following that long prelude- I could understand if the terrorist bomber were used only against soldiers. As any pro Palestinian person would tell you- Hamas and Jihad Islami don't have the power to fight the very organized I.D.F. (Israeli Defence Force), and suicide bombers are the best weapons it has. So aside from the total waste of Palestinian children and parents, I can understand that. There's a saying in hebrew that is very basic- (Transliterating) "Be milchama kemo be milchama"- which, translated literally means "In war like in war". Soldiers are meant to fight, and, if nessecary, die for their country.

EDIT: I've just seen Smass' post, and I think the above offers my view on that.

Originally posted by dragon wench
Though... given that military service is compulsary in Israel (please correct me if I'm wrong Morlock ) I don't think the argument holds much water....

I've never thought of this aspect, as conscription was always compulsary here. All men between 18 and 21 here are soldiers (though there are tens of thousands of exceptions to that rule).

[Morlock]

I got mixed up between the quote and edit buttons, and my acount won't let me delete this. Sorry- stupid double post.

[Zelgadis]

I think my post was misunderstood. To rephrase, why do some people consider the life of a 18-21 yearold male who may or may not have volunteered to be in the armed forces of his country seen as more expendable than than a civilian?

[Morlock]

Originally posted by Zelgadis
I think my post was misunderstood. To rephrase, why do some people consider the life of a 18-21 yearold male who may or may not have volunteered to be in the armed forces of his country seen as more expendable than than a civilian?

Yes, I understood that. My point was, all soldiers in Israeli history have been conscripts, so I wouldn't know what to compare it to, as when I was living in the U.S. (I was born there), I didn't give a rat's ass about my own army.

[Scayde]

Israel declared that it would totaly evacuate all lands captured if Egypt, Syria and Jordan would officialy acknowledge Israel's right to exist, which they refused to do.

I was speaking with someone who said:

"If we were given the chance to do it right, to do it "Democratically", Israel would be voted off the face of the earth. "

I would be all for the occupied territories being returned, and the Palestinian Homeland become a reality...but to me, comments like these send a red flag that this would just not be enough. There are those who will not stop the murders until there is no Israel.

I can not see how these murders, or this abject hatred is justified.

As Smass (I think) has pointed out..the first step to this sort of mentality is to totally objectify your enemy...and by saying they have no right to even exist...I think that objectification has been accomplished.

(That statement also goes for the Idea that the Palestinians do not have a right to their own land.)

[Audace]

Why is everybody so naive to believe that there are innocent people in a war? Me thinks that just the 20th century alone has enough examples to show that there aren't. It's nice to think that "innocent" people should exist in a war, but it's idealistic nonsense.

The war in Vietnam isn't that long ago(neither are the Dutch actions in Indonesia for that matter, just in case i get accused of US bashing) for anybody to get all high and mighty about morals involved in war.

Just like international law about warfare is ridiculous. Only those who lose a war are ever put on trial. That's just one of the nasty side effects of a war. Morals tend to lose priority when everything you hold dear including your life and the life of those you love are at stake. And revenge can make somebody act rather nasty as well.

Then again I have a rather cynical view of humanity in general.

But continue don't mind me ranting....

[smass]

So....an example of the "idealistic nonsense" of innocent victims would be a six year old girl eating breakfast with her mother in a restaurant?

By the same reasoning the 2 month old baby on the bus with her mother would be more examples of such "nonsense".

Truly - this thread is making me sick.

[Sojourner]

Well, it's about time a few more people realised war IS a sick, horrific "business". *grumble* OK, I'll get off the podium now.