Suicide Bombers

[Xandax]

Originally posted by 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.

War is terrible, yes - but killing women and children and other similar innocent civilians isn't a war.

[fable]

Originally posted by 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.

I think Audace's point is that *in general,* neither the Israeli's nor the Palestinian's can claim the moral high ground.

[Audace]

Originally posted by fable
I think Audace's point is that *in general,* neither the Israeli's nor the Palestinian's can claim the moral high ground.

Yes, or even more in general, there is no moral high ground in war. Who's the victim? The Russian people that got hanged burned alive and god knows what, or the German mothers that lost their father, husband and son and subsequently gets raped and beaten half to death by Russian soldiers?

I'm glad eveybody finds war repulsive. But to discuss the morals of a war is a luxury only those not involved can afford. People have real motives to commit these kind of acts. And even though I wish I was, I'm not naive enough not to at least understand them. I'm not saying I'm supporting them, I'm just not judging them.

[smass]

Fable said:

think Audace's point is that *in general,* neither the Israeli's nor the Palestinian's can claim the moral high ground

If that is what he meant than that is what he should have said.
What he did say was:

Audace said:

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

Nothing ambiguous at all about this statement. So far the idea of innocent victims has been categorized as "idealistic nonsense" and now it is inferred that it would be "naive" to believe that people could be innocent.

Since these blanket statements have been made - I think I have the right to make one of my own:

The idea that no one is innocent infers that anything goes in war. If your feel your cause is just you can use any means you deem necessary to reach your goals. I reject this idea outright and find it extremely offensive. You can call me "idealistic" all you like - but I believe in right and wrong and good and evil. And before you jump to conclusions - I am not referring to right and wrong in judging the politics or claims of any side of the Israel/Palestine argument. I am referring to right and wrong in the evaluation of acts of premeditated murder.

If you want to take the position that there is no moral standard for behavior in war - and that innocents do not exist - then I see no point in debating further with you.

[Xandax]

There is a reason for the fact that UN/NATO have rules of engagement in conflicts. That is to protect the innocent.
It is also to make it possible to carry on some sort of dimplomatic relations during and indeed after the conflict.

There is a reason why we don't see the same military tactics of second world war in regular conflicts. Is because it has little military strategic gain.

If aimless killing is utilized, you will not only move away from haveing any chance of being able to carry dimplomatic relations after a conflict , but you will not reach any military goals either, and thus not shorten a conflict - on the contrary.

Countless conflicts show that targeting civilians have done nothing but to increasing the resilience against the opposing force.
WW2 and Vietnam have amble examples of this, just to mention a few.

Civilians are innocent because they are not a military target.

Suicide bombings carry no military strategic goal - its only effect is to enfuriate and prolong the conflict.

[Audace]

Originally posted by smass
If you want to take the position that there is no moral standard for behavior in war - and that innocents do not exist - then I see no point in debating further with you. [/b]

I'm not stating personal opinions, 'cause they don't matter in this case. Wether or not I feel, believe or want morals in war doesn't matter. History shows that there aren't any. Just as history shows that innocents are a target. Wether out of revenge, boredome, or for military tactical or strategical purposes.

Rules of engagement last about as long as the war is easy and goes as planned. Believe all you want, I'm just making a factual observation.

Of course innocent people exist. The discussion was about if it's justified too see innocents as a target or not. My point is that it doesn't matter if it is justified, they are a target and always will be. That's what I meant maybe I should have worded(?) the phrase differently....

[dragon wench]

Originally posted by Audace
Of course innocent people exist. The discussion was about if it's justified too see innocents as a target or not. My point is that it doesn't matter if it is justified, they are a target and always will be. That's what I meant maybe I should have worded(?) the phrase differently....

I don't disagree. There are few, if any, historical precedents in which civilians were not viewed as targets. However, I don't think this is a reason to apathetically roll over and not condemn it for the heinous tactic that it is....

I'm often pretty cynical about humanity as well... but I try to retain a shred of hope that we *can* achieve a less 'barbarous' condition. Otherwise, why continue.... ?

[Xandax]

In mordern times, the view has gone towards trying to inflict maximum military damage while keeping civilan losses at a minimum.

[CM]

Had a long day and night. Will try to post responses tomorrow.

[Sojourner]

Originally posted by Xandax
Countless conflicts show that targeting civilians have done nothing but to increasing the resilience against the opposing force.
WW2 and Vietnam have amble examples of this, just to mention a few.

Civilians are innocent because they are not a military target.

Suicide bombings carry no military strategic goal - its only effect is to enfuriate and prolong the conflict.

Yep - moving to total war in WWII (as it was called then) resulted in hardening both sides' positions. Americans targetting villages in Vietnam drove more over to the NLF.

One caveat - suicide bombings and targetting civilians are different things.

[Xandax]

Originally posted by Sojourner
<snip>
One caveat - suicide bombings and targetting civilians are different things.

Yes - of couse. I ment the suicide bombings in resturants and busses etc specifically aimed at civilians, as seen in the conflict in middel east.

[Luis Antonio]

Well, my point is simple: Suicide is not an option (that's why I havent suiceded last year). Killing is not an option.

I dont think they are guilty for what they do when a suicide bomber does that job (nasty) but someone has imprinted this path, this pattern on theyr minds.

Take what all people tell about CM: A gentle person, good folk and stuff, he's got hugs and kisses (even though some of them have been cancelled after this thread) and I think he is cool. But the patterns he learned leaded to the way he is, the way his mind manifests. He is not wrong in supporting. He has been tought that.

If your dad had told you to hate russians you will do, as a lot of american people have done on the past. If you ask a brazilian about Argentina's folk they will tell you they are scum. But they've only been programed for that. War works this way - there's even people who support it. I would support a war for specie survival, but a internal conflict on human versus human is not something the patterns I have learned explain.

It is all about culture. There were people who sacrificed people, (they still exist) there were people who killed for sport (they still exist) and a Cultural change is needed to avoid things such as this suicide-inocent-killing thingie, even though my thoughts may seem naive for the rest of you. We need to find Utopia, we need to change the sistem. Globally, not locally.

CM, I enjoy your posts, I wont argue with you bout you personal feelings, but I needed to let this here, been following the posts for the last couple of days and thought that I shall write something down. Actually, I like to see you dont hide at all.

But all this ww theory is making me sick. You know, it is all a matter of politics an cultural factors, mixed with a lot of stubborn minds and small things that never cease.

Hugs for everybody on this thread.

[Lazarus]

Well, gosh, since y’all seem to think it is worth discussing the issue, far be it from me to come off as some crazy, hot-headed whack-o who refuses to play the game. So …

Schwoebli says:
@Lazarus
there is a difference in expressing your opinion and using f-words...

Sure. And there is a difference between using f-words and supporting terrorists. A really, really big difference. Gruntboy was banned according to forum rules, and that’s fine. I have no problem with CM stating his opinions. What I was attempting to convey with my previous post is simply my astonishment at the divide that is made evident by these events. I would assume that the flaming rule is intended to save people from feeling threatened or hurt by things said on this forum. If Buck thinks flaming and swearing have that potential, and he wants to keep GB clean and friendly, it’s his call. But don’t you people feel threatened by a man who “supports” (still not sure what CM means by the word “support,” BTW) terrorists? I mean, seriously, we are talking about a life and death situation here, not some childish swearing, and the reaction is one that seems surrealistically academic – as if the outcome of such a minor debate is of no great import, and we can all sit about peacefully discussing ideas. But the opposition here (not CM, but the people he “supports”) would only hope to conclude any debate with fifteen sticks of TNT – don’t you (all) understand the futility of such a “discussion?” At the same time, I do not feel this thread should be closed. My feeling is simply astonishment at what some people feel is offensive or threatening: swearing versus sanction of murder.

CM says:
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.

And so the corruption of their governments is the responsibility of the US? And this has what to do with the killing of civilians?

2. The two most militarily advanced muslim nations are targetted as terrorist nations. Pakistan and Iran.

I have my doubts about this statement. Pakistan is our buddy now! Yes, that statement is 50% sarcasm, but in no way could our relationship with Pakistan be described as targeting them as a terrorist nation. As for Iran: I think Iran’s military is weaker than it’s numbers suggest. Saddam had a “million man army,” too. Don’t mean much these days. Again: this has what exactly to do with supporting terrorist groups?

3. Israel is allowed to violate international law and conduct while muslim nations are condemned for actions of fringe luantic groups.

So … you support the lunatic fringe groups? How does this solve anything? It simply re-enforces a negative image – in fact, makes that image into reality.

All of your statements about the perceptions of Muslims in the world are simply to say: they feel wronged, so their terrorism is somehow justified. My response: the Muslims of the world who feel this way need to get over their persecution complex and start behaving like rational human beings. I think that has been the answer all along.

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).

Is this what makes you a “liberal or moderate” (as you describe yourself in another thread)? *Sigh* You know the world is in trouble when a “liberal” is one who only sanctions the killing of innocent people “to benefit the [fill in the blank] society.” I don’t even know where to begin or end a response to that. Shall we discuss the futility of making distinctions between one terrorist group and another? Or shall we debate the inherent tribalism of talking about “ummah,” and compare it to Hitler’s Volk and to Stalin’s Proletariat?

Later, CM says:
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?

How many times must we refute this old bromide? Fine, let them be “freedom fighters.” But a freedom fighter has to do their fighting within the bounds of human decency. They can blow up tanks, military bases, soldiers – they do not specifically target civilians; once that line has been crossed, they become not freedom fighters, but terrorists. Period.

Zelgadis says:
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?

A soldier has made a conscious decision to defend the nation for which s/he fights. As such, they are supporting the policies of that nation, must take some measure of responsibility for them, and must accept the possibility being targeted as an aggressor. Now, Israel has a conscript army, so there is some argument to be made that the soldiers have no choice about being there. Personally, I view conscription as immoral for this reason (among others): it forces an individual to support a military they may not agree with the actions of. But I’ve also always believed that if one felt so strongly about being conscripted, they should look for citizenship elsewhere. Or, maybe Israel has a non-military option like Germany. If not, it should (IMO).

That’s it for me. Like smass, this thread makes me ill every time I see it. I was torn from the start about making this last post, as I really feel that any “debate” on the subject pointless, and possibly dangerous. Pointless, because we are trying to discuss with people who will simply use violence in the face of reasoned debate. And dangerous because (contrary to C Elegans’ opinion) I do believe that holding a conversation on a subject such as this gives legitimacy to the opposition. You all know me: I’ll argue just about anything! But there is a point where you just have to realize that it is not the right thing to do. For me, that point is reached when your opponent openly advocates violence against defenseless and innocent people. (As a note: the subject of Israel/Palestine is entirely separate and distinct, IMO. That is a subject worth debate and discussion. “Suicide bombers” is not.)

[Luis Antonio]

CM, how will you react if your whole family had been bombed, and you become the only survivor? I mean, will you revenge or what?

[CM]

Sorry i havent replied but i spoke to scayde for roughly 3 hours and promised her that i would give my decision a second review. Re-think what i have sad and decided. Until i have come to a conclusion i dont think it would be fair for me to continue defending something i am not sure if i agree with.

But Luis to answer your question. If my family is killed. I wouldnt be a suicide bomber. I would personally under go training to make sure i could kill as many of those who killed my family. Suicide bombing wouldnt be efficient. Civilian or otherwise. After all they didnt care if my family was civilian.