- 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?
What is objective about suicide?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?
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.
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?
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.
Nothing wrong with killing civilians? Yes, there is. Targeting civilians is a cowardly act.
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.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.
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?
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.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.
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.
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.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.
If it's done where there are a large number of civilians, then obviously it's done with the intent to kill civilians.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?