• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

An Objective Discussion On the Use of Suicide Bombing

Hoplite

Technomancer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
3,779
Reaction score
1,079
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I'm interested to have a discussion purely about the use of suicide bombing as a method of armed insurrection. I'm not looking for a discussion about Palestine or any other situation currently.

From what I can see, the objection to the use of suicide bombing comes when those who use this tactic choose to deploy in populated civilian areas. In other words, it's the target that draws the outrage, not the method.

Does the feeling on the matter change if the targets are military or no one is killed but great property damage is done?
 
I'm interested to have a discussion purely about the use of suicide bombing as a method of armed insurrection. I'm not looking for a discussion about Palestine or any other situation currently.

From what I can see, the objection to the use of suicide bombing comes when those who use this tactic choose to deploy in populated civilian areas. In other words, it's the target that draws the outrage, not the method.

Does the feeling on the matter change if the targets are military or no one is killed but great property damage is done?

Yes.

The suicide attacks on the WTC were terrorism. The only terroristic part of the attack on the Pentagon was the use of the plane. Had they blown themselves up instead without using civilians, it would have been an act of war not a terroristic act of war. However, you could argue that those people were merely collateral damage, and I can see the point there. That is, the target was a government installation and some civilians died. Terrible, to be sure, but the intended target was military, not civilian.

Typically suicide bombers have gone after soft targets in order not to destroy their enemy's government or military, but to destroy the resolve of the civilians who support the military and government, to terrorize them. You're right, if they went after other targets it wouldn't be viewed the way it is, but it's a lot easier to blow yourself up in a cafe then in a military base.
 
Personally, I consider suicide bombing to be a legitimate wartime tactic and I'm not outraged by it in any occasion.

People who attack us are the enemy and must be destroyed.
 
I'm interested to have a discussion purely about the use of suicide bombing as a method of armed insurrection. I'm not looking for a discussion about Palestine or any other situation currently.

From what I can see, the objection to the use of suicide bombing comes when those who use this tactic choose to deploy in populated civilian areas. In other words, it's the target that draws the outrage, not the method.

Does the feeling on the matter change if the targets are military or no one is killed but great property damage is done?
What is objective about suicide?
 
What is objective about suicide?

In a military sense, it's an effective tactic in some circumstances. When you're occupied by a superior force, going toe-to-toe in a conventional fashion is basically suicidal. You don't beat a superpower with tanks, because they have more tanks. When your superior enemy's goal is occupation instead of extermination, you have the opportunity to pick and choose your battles and your targets.

Suicide bombing is an effective way of doing this, because it will nearly always come with the element of surprise. Your occupier is unwilling to just shoot everyone on sight, in an attempt to keep innocents alive. With that, they are unwilling to shoot your suicide bomber until they've positively identified him or her as an actual threat, which is often too late to actually prevent the bombing.

It's an effective way to fight an enemy when they are more concerned with collateral damage than you are. If your enemy draws a distinction between your fighters and innocent civilians, you can take advantage of this. Suicide bombers are one of many ways. The damage inflicted exceeds the resources expended. Meanwhile, that superpower must expend more resources to inflict less damage in order to maintain minimal collateral damage.
 
Last edited:
I'm interested to have a discussion purely about the use of suicide bombing as a method of armed insurrection. I'm not looking for a discussion about Palestine or any other situation currently.

From what I can see, the objection to the use of suicide bombing comes when those who use this tactic choose to deploy in populated civilian areas. In other words, it's the target that draws the outrage, not the method.

Does the feeling on the matter change if the targets are military or no one is killed but great property damage is done?

When it comes to the use of suicide bombing as a military tactic, it's no more objectionable to me than any thing else. If that's how they want to fight a war, that's totally up to them.

My objections with suicide bombings are in two specific areas.

1. The use of children to perpetrate them.
2. Their use against civilian populations and non-military targets.

I think those objections speak for themselves and need no elaboration.
 
When it comes to the use of suicide bombing as a military tactic, it's no more objectionable to me than any thing else. If that's how they want to fight a war, that's totally up to them.

My objections with suicide bombings are in two specific areas.

1. The use of children to perpetrate them.
2. Their use against civilian populations and non-military targets.

I think those objections speak for themselves and need no elaboration.

You're against the freedom for children to blow themselves up and murder others in the process! You monster!

No, wait. The other thing. Normal person.
 
Personally, I consider suicide bombing to be a legitimate wartime tactic and I'm not outraged by it in any occasion.

People who attack us are the enemy and must be destroyed.

I'm not outraged by it either, but I don't consider it a legitimate wartime tactic. How can it be when its main purpose is to kill civilians? It's a war crime.

In Viet Nam, they used suicide bombers -- often old men, women and children. As a result, American soldiers often shot first and asked questions later adding to the civilian death toll and killing complete innocents. And all because suicide bombers were out there.

Those groups who utilize suicide bombers to target civilians are guilty of war crimes of the highest order. They should be hung from the nearest tree. Add to this that some suicide bombers aren't committing suicide but are murdered (because they have no idea what they're carrying) and I find it completely dispicable.
 
I'm interested to have a discussion purely about the use of suicide bombing as a method of armed insurrection. I'm not looking for a discussion about Palestine or any other situation currently.

From what I can see, the objection to the use of suicide bombing comes when those who use this tactic choose to deploy in populated civilian areas. In other words, it's the target that draws the outrage, not the method.

Does the feeling on the matter change if the targets are military or no one is killed but great property damage is done?

Personally, I think depending on the situation and how the suicide bombing is carried out, SB can be a very effective method.

For example, if one is trying to scare the populace and use the size of the occupying force against the enemy (like in Afghanistan), then SBing in a populated area can be a good thing because it accomplishes both objectives. It is a double-edged sword, however, in that while it accomplishes the above-mentioned objectives, it also alienates the populace from the group that did the SB.
 
I'm not outraged by it either, but I don't consider it a legitimate wartime tactic. How can it be when its main purpose is to kill civilians? It's a war crime.

Nothing wrong with killing civilians. Without civilians, soldiers can't fight.

In Viet Nam, they used suicide bombers -- often old men, women and children. As a result, American soldiers often shot first and asked questions later adding to the civilian death toll and killing complete innocents. And all because suicide bombers were out there.

Which contributed massively to the issues of demoralization among American troops and the difficulties they had in communicating with civilians. The use of suicide bombers by the Viet Cong seriously hampered American troops' ability to prosecute the war, and undermined public support for the war at home. If it hadn't been for Viet Cong ruthlessness and the squeamishness of the American public, the Vietnam War could have ended entirely differently.
 
Nothing wrong with killing civilians? Yes, there is. Targeting civilians is a cowardly act.
 
Easy to say that when we're fighting the war with air bombers and call label all our civilian casualties as "collateral damage".
We don't target them though. In fact, we'll forego the tactical advantage rather than go after civilians. It's why the cowardly terrorists hide among them.
 
We don't target them though. In fact, we'll forego the tactical advantage rather than go after civilians. It's why the cowardly terrorists hide among them.

Dead civilians are dead civilians regardless of the intent of those who killed them. Any sense of morality in war is going to be entirely relative.
 
Nothing wrong with killing civilians. Without civilians, soldiers can't fight.

Which contributed massively to the issues of demoralization among American troops and the difficulties they had in communicating with civilians. The use of suicide bombers by the Viet Cong seriously hampered American troops' ability to prosecute the war, and undermined public support for the war at home. If it hadn't been for Viet Cong ruthlessness and the squeamishness of the American public, the Vietnam War could have ended entirely differently.

We are bound by numerous treaties that make targetting civilians a war crime. You would have it different for our enemies?

Re Viet Nam, I agree with you. While we are bound by treaties such as the Geneva Convention, our terrorist enemies are not. Had we been so bound in WWII, we would have lost the war.
 
We are bound by numerous treaties that make targetting civilians a war crime. You would have it different for our enemies?

Our enemies already fight by different rules. I would have it different for us.

The only exception I make is to the treatment of prisoners. That, I consider a matter of honor above and beyond any treaty.
 
Dead civilians are dead civilians regardless of the intent of those who killed them. Any sense of morality in war is going to be entirely relative.
Intent does matter in that we don't make it a point to target civilians. If we did, there would be a lot more dead civilians. It's our intent that separates from the terrorist. I don't disagree, though, that the morality of war is a slippery concept. Civilian casualties are inevitable and I agree with Maggie that we would have lost WW II if we fought that war the way we fight wars now.
 
Personally, I consider suicide bombing to be a legitimate wartime tactic and I'm not outraged by it in any occasion.

People who attack us are the enemy and must be destroyed.

Yes.

The suicide attacks on the WTC were terrorism. The only terroristic part of the attack on the Pentagon was the use of the plane. Had they blown themselves up instead without using civilians, it would have been an act of war not a terroristic act of war. However, you could argue that those people were merely collateral damage, and I can see the point there. That is, the target was a government installation and some civilians died. Terrible, to be sure, but the intended target was military, not civilian.

Typically suicide bombers have gone after soft targets in order not to destroy their enemy's government or military, but to destroy the resolve of the civilians who support the military and government, to terrorize them. You're right, if they went after other targets it wouldn't be viewed the way it is, but it's a lot easier to blow yourself up in a cafe then in a military base.

When it comes to the use of suicide bombing as a military tactic, it's no more objectionable to me than any thing else. If that's how they want to fight a war, that's totally up to them.

My objections with suicide bombings are in two specific areas.

1. The use of children to perpetrate them.
2. Their use against civilian populations and non-military targets.

I think those objections speak for themselves and need no elaboration.



^ The above quotes pretty much sum it up for me; especially the bolded parts. No need to add anything really.

Well, I will add one thing. I read a story a few years ago, supposedly true. A boy about 13 or 14 approached a military post, crying, and showed the soldiers the "dead man trigger" in his hand, attached to the explosive vest he was wearing, and begged them to help him remove it without blowing himself up. That story put the period on how this tactic is being commonly used today, for me.

Kamikaze diving and crashing into carriers is one thing; an honorable sacrifice made by a soldier fighting other soldiers. Children blowing up children is a thing of no honor.
 
Last edited:
I'm not outraged by it either, but I don't consider it a legitimate wartime tactic. How can it be when its main purpose is to kill civilians? It's a war crime.
Not true. It's often used in civilian settings, but the main purpose is not necessarily to kill civilians. It's simply to inflict a great deal of damage, the target is up to the bombers; same as any other weapon.
 
Not true. It's often used in civilian settings, but the main purpose is not necessarily to kill civilians. It's simply to inflict a great deal of damage, the target is up to the bombers; same as any other weapon.
If it's done where there are a large number of civilians, then obviously it's done with the intent to kill civilians.
 
Back
Top Bottom