Is Suicide Bombing Respectable, or Acceptable?

S

siqqq6

New member
The guidelines are these:

NINE is supportive to the highest

ONE is NO TOLERANCE OF SUCH ACTS by my people.

-go with that...
 
The question I was asked did not involve U.S. soldiers in the scenerio -- but that never stopped a U.S. hater before so it's not surprising.

Reverse your "worse" and "worst".
 
Suicide bombing civilians is an essentially criminal act, against a military post it is a legitimate style of warfare. Those stuck in the 1940s will condemn it as wrongful, as all those who fall behind the times declare new styles of warfare they are ineffective against, from the crossbow to trenches to guerrila warfare.
 
Since the suicide bombers are targeting civilians and those who would enforce the law, it is extremely reprehensible. And those that support these groups should be eliminated.
 
If the terrorists indiscriminately open fire on police officers and civilians, in the same way that they set off bombs it doesn't make a shred of difference, unless the people can outrun bullets.
 
Well, once the first few shots are let off most people will hit the deck, get indoors, or otherwise take cover. It also leaves the terrorists open to retaliation from armed civilians. The bodycount shouldn't be as high from a gunman/gunmen opening fire into a crowd.
 
I don't believe it is a case of best and worst, I think it is a case of cost and benefit. Obviously we don't want to be blowing up civilians willy nilly with carpet bombing operations now that we are on the ground and trying to get them to like us, so the effect of carpet bombing (killing insurgents and civilians, causing panic, fear and hatred as well as considerable infrastructure damage) is negative. The cost is effectively zero in terms of soldiers and airmens lives, but it still isn't worth it.
 
So the french revolution was reprehensible fro targeting nazis and french law enforcement, who were colaborating with the nazis? What about when russians killed members fo the secret police.

Blind alleginace and respect for law enforcement personnel, a defining trait of fascism, is seldom a wise idea. Law enforcement personell are only as honorable as the institution they are supporting, and if those in power are bad apples, the reprehensible act is to go into law enforcement and support tyhem and assist them in carrying out their policies.

We killed an awful lot of people who were enforcing the law on the way into Iraq.
 
And yet another instance where I should have been more clear. By 'those who would' I meant the citizens signing up to BE enforcement people. Those waiting in line that are targeted. They are not yet part of the force, and the murder bombers are targeting them not on some 'righteousness' kick. They are doing it for intimidation, period. To get people to do what THEY want. There is your fascism. The Islamist bombers ARE the Nazis in this case, and they and all who associate with them should be eradicated. To think otherwise is the pure definition of lunacy.
 
Suicide bombing is just like any other method to kill, maim and destroy. I don`t condone it anymore than setting of an explosive the old fashioned way, or use a gun. Killing other individuals is always morally wrong unless there are extreme circumstances that justifies the killing IMO. The actual method used is not very important (allthough torture or other extremly painful killings could be considered "worse")
 
Standing in line to join the enemy does nto make you an enemy? If nothing else, it woudl certainly make you a collaborator, would it not?

The bombers are the nazis in this case? You will have to remind me, which nations have they invaded? I must have missed that one in the news. As I understood it, WE invaded THEIR country and started locking people up and torturing them. I really must read the paper more carefully. :rolleyes:
 
This has strayed from the initial question.

I'm in agreement that suicide bombing is a legitimate tactic for war.

But there have been numerous instances of suicide bombers taking out their own people, with no US forces nearby.

I think that the people of the middle east would continue to be suicide bombed even if there were no invading forces there.
 
It's a civil war. Those deemed as collaborating with the occupiers and their imposed government, such as police and military recruits, are considered resistance enemies. That their own people (civilians around those applying for police/military jobs) are killed is viewed with the same rationalization we (US) use for air and artillery bombing, collateral damage with a positive reaction of additional intimidation.
 
So kidnapping people and lopping off their heaRAB on video equates with an armed man defending his family and home from a Meth'ed out freak with a knife? Give me a break.

If someone wants to be a true "suicide" bomber and scatter their bloody remains all over an empty field, they have my blessing. If they choose to blow themselves up in a populated area because they have a wild hair implanted in their arse -- that is whole nuther matter.

To say the method is of no consequence is a bit silly.
 
You make a good point, and those that are going to fight will do so with whatever weapons are available to them.

I know that if the US was invaded by another country, and that country tried to impose its form of government on them, that there would be scaRAB of people coming out of the woodwork to resist. The situation, viewed from that point, can easily be seen.

But you've got to admit that the recent killing of a bunch of children that were getting candy from US soldiers wasn't right in any way. Yes, it sent a message to the parents of the children. No, the children weren't collaborating, they were hungry kiRAB getting some candy, and I'm sure that they knew there were soldiers but probably didn't care where they came from, only that they were giving out candy.

Blowing yourself up and taking people with you can be an effective weapon. The issues that I have with it is that there is much more indiscriminate collateral damage done, and that it is a coward's* weapon

*"Coward" meaning that you cannot be held accountable for your actions, not that you had the gumption to push the button in the first place. Also, striking against unarmed people indiscriminately is cowardly.
 
Nice of you to take my statement out of context. This thread isn't about the motive for the killing, but rather the method.
What's the difference in suicide bombing Iraqi police officers or gunning them down? Answer: nothing.
 
Back
Top