Suicide Bombers

CM · Post by CM » Wed Jan 28, 2004 12:02 pm

Look i dont want to turn this into an Israeli Palestinian debate thread, because i support the Intifada. I am a avid support of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hizbullah. So suicide bombing though haram i personally find it an acceptable means of resistance. But i dont want to make than an issue here.

I posted my views there. But this is a seperate discussion. If people want to discuss it i am willing to explain my point of view. But it aint gonna be pretty.

Morlock · Post by **Morlock** » Wed Jan 28, 2004 12:19 pm

Although I can understand the plight of the Palestinians, and have many criticisms about my government- I think there is no justification of suicide bombings. I can understand and identify with the bombers themselves, but first of all, It is amed specifically atinnocent civilians and second, and infinatley more important, 16 family members, friends and neigbors of mine have been killed in suicide bombings, and at least a dozen people that I knew casualy or have met. I have myself been twice through a suicide attack (one was a shooter, one was a bomber), and was taken to the hospital after being under a window that blew directly on top of me.

I can understand the plight of Palestinians, and I am very much in for a solution equal to bothy states. But I know that I, and I think a lot of the rest o the world, will not be willing to deal equally as partners with people who target my cousins. I think the second they drop the terrorist attacks- they will have the total upper hand, and will be morally and legaly in the right.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Wed Jan 28, 2004 12:22 pm

Initially I wanted to stay away from this because I find it disturbing. But ... (should proberly have stayed away).
I have great sympaties with the victims of the Isrelic and Palenstinian victims for that conflict, and I see it as a great stain on humanity that nothing can be worked out in that regioin, but .....

I find it disturbing that somebody - especially that descripes themselves as liberal and moderate - would support and accept suicide bombings. A "tactic" that is designed to target innocent civilians, out shopping, eating, anywhere and whichs only goal is to cause so much terror that the targeted part "gives up".
But I guess, to support such a tactic, one would not descripe anybody from the "enemy" as civilian or innocents.

And with sentiments like that from such a corner, it is no wonder that any hope for a peacefull solution to the middel east conflict is all but gone. Because as you said yourself, imagine how the conservative feel (and add to this the fanatics that actually blow up innocent people). I had imagined that it was only fanatics and similars that actually supported such a tactic and the rest actually were interested in a peace.

Violence breeds violence, and targeting innocent civilians will never accomplish many goals, on the contrary - it will only hurt them and bring peace even futher away.

Mysteria · Post by **Mysteria** » Wed Jan 28, 2004 12:22 pm

CM; You just disappointed me. I thought you were a sensible man.

No, I don't want to hear your point of view because it certainly won't change mine and discussing would therefore be pointless.

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Wed Jan 28, 2004 1:29 pm

I have long supported various liberation movements in the world, and I would not classify myself as a pacifist. A number of years ago I was actively involved with South and Central American solidarity groups.

However, I do not, under any circumstances, condone the slaughter of innocent civilians through the use of suicide bombings or any other means. It is not morally or ethically justifiable under any grounds. Period.

Repugnant acts such as this place the perpetrators on the same level as the brutal military violence carried out by those the suicide bombers are alledgedly fighting.

smass · Post by **smass** » Wed Jan 28, 2004 1:37 pm

.....................Ok................Really I'm Ok...........What the ........

I am speechless - and thats saying something. I am going to flex my arrogant, narcisistic, American muscles and make a blanket statement here.

Any premeditated, intentional, attacks on innocents civilians for any cause cannot be justified in any way. Phillisophically, politically, morally, religiously, or any other damn way.

Suicide bombing of civilians including women and children is a cowardly act of evil. period.

Support who you will. Justify your position any way you will. Talk to the hand cause the head ain't listening - Murder is murder.

And by the way - In the context of murder I could not give one damn about the Israel vs. Palestine debate.

Lazarus · Post by **Lazarus** » Wed Jan 28, 2004 1:48 pm

Originally posted by smass
.....................Ok................Really I'm Ok...........What the ........

I am speechless - and thats saying something. I am going to flex my arrogant, narcisistic, American muscles and make a blanket statement here.

Any premeditated, intentional, attacks on innocents civilians for any cause cannot be justified in any way. Phillisophically, politically, morally, religiously, or any other damn way.

Suicide bombing of civilians including women and children is a cowardly act of evil. period.

Support who you will. Justify your position any way you will. Talk to the hand cause the head ain't listening - Murder is murder.

What he said.

Sojourner · Post by **Sojourner** » Wed Jan 28, 2004 1:54 pm

Originally posted by CM
Look i dont want to turn this into an Israeli Palestinian debate thread, because i support the Intifada. I am a avid support of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hizbullah. So suicide bombing though haram i personally find it an acceptable means of resistance. But i dont want to make than an issue here.

I posted my views there. But this is a seperate discussion. If people want to discuss it i am willing to explain my point of view. But it aint gonna be pretty.

My two cents worth: The Palestinians are throwing away their future (their youth). Suicide bombings never made sense to me.

der Moench · Post by **der Moench** » Wed Jan 28, 2004 7:44 pm

Originally posted by Mysteria
CM; You just disappointed me. I thought you were a sensible man.

No, I don't want to hear your point of view because it certainly won't change mine and discussing would therefore be pointless.

This is my sentiment, also.

Sorry, Fas, but I can't condone such ideas. And, truthfully, I'm a little sad to see that no more people have come forward to denounce them. I think when I posted this reply we had something like 80 views of this thread, and only 7 responses. It makes me sad.

Delacroix · Post by **Delacroix** » Wed Jan 28, 2004 9:44 pm

Originally posted by CM
Look i dont want to turn this into an Israeli Palestinian debate thread, because i support the Intifada. I am a avid support of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hizbullah. So suicide bombing though haram i personally find it an acceptable means of resistance. But i dont want to make than an issue here.

I posted my views there. But this is a seperate discussion. If people want to discuss it i am willing to explain my point of view. But it aint gonna be pretty.

Besides of my opinion, that is irrelevant now, you do think you can defend your point in ways to justify for other ppl, who you already knew would react the way they did, the suicide bombing acts.
To be honest, i am curious about your next post.
What is suposly your objective, since your post there is quite sensacionalist. Well, you draw my attention.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:16 pm

I respect you Fas, but I do not share your opionion. Like DW, I am close to a pacifict, and I find deliberate targeting of civilians unacceptable during any circumstances. This means I find suicide bombing targetting civilians unacceptable. It also means I find events such as the fire bombing of Dresden or Tokyo, and the atom bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, unacceptable. It also means I find all the Israeli military actions against civilians (remember Jenin anyone?), unacceptable.

However, in the present policital climate, many people find it more unacceptable that a person support Palestinian intentional targetting of innocent civilians by suicide bombing, than if a person support Israel's intentional targetting of innocent civilians by letting bulldozers tear down houses knowing there are people inside. To me, there is no difference - it is equally unacceptable.

After the WTC attack in 2001, I heard a lot of Americans wanting to "nuke Afghanistan back to the stone age" with little concern for all the Afghanian civilians that would have died in the hunt for Osama bin Laden. Any person who have ever felt that as an emotional response to being attacked, should be able to understand suicide bombing. Anyone who has but for a moment felt that violent revenge was the satisfying solution to a conflict, should be able to understand suicide bombing as a phenomenon - and many people need to learn that understanding a phenomena doesn't mean approval or support of that same phenomena.

Part of the reason why all discussions of the WTC-attack, suicide bombings and terrorism in general has become so infected, is IMO that far too many people have bought in to the Dubyah-rhethorics of "you either support everything the US does, or you are on the terrorists side". Sharon uses the same false dichotomy-rhethorics. And the result is that deeper discussion become impossible, since explanations, understanding of the background and the mechanisms, exploring causality chains - all this has been made equal to "defending" and "supporting". This is equal to saying that my efforts to understand the causes and mechanisms that can result in a person developing Alzheimers disease, is equal to my supporting and defending the existance of the disease.

Things don't go away because we turn our backs to them and label them as "evil" and "impossible to explain". This is a big part of what is maintaining cycles of violence. When violent revenge at the opponent is the only thing that is not viewed as "giving in to the evil powers", it doesn't matter if the "evil" in question is terrorists, the US, Israel, Iraq or something else. Not even the US is going to have the power and possibility to simply kill off all possible threats - they participate in keeping the cycle of violence running.

Originally posted by CM
If people want to discuss it i am willing to explain my point of view. But it aint gonna be pretty.

So Fas, there are two things I am interested in discussing:

1. What are your arguments for supporting killing and injuring innocent civilians? Those are individuals, who may or may not be totally innocent, have no responsibility what so ever for the conflict in question, and perhaps even no means to influence the situation at all. One could imagine a situation where civilians are not totally innocent: to continue with the Israel-Palestine conflict as an example, one could discuss wheter Israeli people who volonteerily have chosen to live in the occupied Gaza, West bank or Golan heighs are totally innocent. However, suicide bombing does not discriminate - the bomber may even kill people who are sympathetic to the long term goals of the bomber's side - many Israeli people are pro a two state solution and highly critical towards the current governments line. However, my main qeustion is:
How can it ever be acceptable to murder innocent people and use their deaths as an instrument for blackmail?

2. The suicide bombings are not only immoral - they are also extremly inefficient in reaching the goal of a fair treatment of the Palestinian people and the creation of a Palestinian state. If the bombers targeted Sharon and Netanyahu they might be able to change something in their direction, just as the Israeli ultranationalist who murdered Rabin in order to stop the land-for-peace treaty, actually managed to induce some long term change. But killing innocent civilians is not only ineffecient in not making any political difference, it is even more ineffecient because it will and does, every time, induce an immediate military response from Israel, and it has made Palestine loose much of the international good will and support they actually had in the beginning of the present intifada. So it is merely taking the Palestinian people further from the goal of ending the Israeli occupation. So why support something that is extremely harmful to a righteous cause, namely the ending Israel's illegal occupation and the formation of a Palestinian state?

Scayde · Post by **Scayde** » Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:58 pm

Fas, I read this when you posted it...I have stayed away from Gamebanshee since then trying to calm down and cool off.

What I have to say to you does not belong on the board.

I will send you a PM.

Morlock · Post by **Morlock** » Thu Jan 29, 2004 6:26 am

And speaking of suicide bombers- this morning, while at the tailors for my suit for my brother's wedding, we heard a big boom. Another bus blew up two blocks away, the same bus I took getting to the tailor.

Lazarus · Post by **Lazarus** » Thu Jan 29, 2004 9:16 am

You know, the more I consider this the more infuriated I become. Think about it: Gruntboy was banned for using a freakin’ four letter word. CM here comes out and says he supports the people who would be perfectly happy to kill off a board member tomorrow, and we sit down and try to have some kind of discussion on the subject!? What the #@%&*!?

Man, this is just too, too surreal for me.

Schwoebli · Post by **Schwoebli** » Thu Jan 29, 2004 9:45 am

I think it is always wrong to achieve a political/social goal by force. However if there wasn't any war/terror nobody in the US/EU/Russia/UNO would know/care about the Israelian/Palestinian conflict.

Also with the lack of any militarian power the Palestini are quite limited in their options...

well, the best way for the Palestinian people maybe would be to start marches for their liberty like ghandi. At least they would be the moralic winner then.

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

p.s. I hope you understand what I am trying to say (I don't always know the correct word in English)

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Jan 29, 2004 9:54 am

First off: Gruntboy received three warnings from Buck for extensive flaming, and was banned after repeatedly promising he would stop without doing so. If you want to continue *that* discussion, take it directly to Buck in PMs, please.

Second, the mods know this thread is a very touchy issue. If anybody is severely offended by its discussion, there's a standard procedure to deal with it that everybody here, veterans of the board, understand: report it as a forum violation. This doesn't mean the thread would close, but it does mean we'd give it close attention and possibly do so. As it's happened repeatedly in the past, I'm sure there won't be any cynical snickers about its unlikelihood.

We were hoping this thread could be a way to initiate genuine discussion. Thus far, it's been a means to state contrasting positions with heat. So I'll take the first step: @Fas, when has the targeting and death of civilians ever worked historically as a method to create a nation? Why haven't the leaders that order suicide bombers focused instead on police, army and infrastructure?

To everybody else who has opinions but has never lived in either Israel or Palestine, I would ask: what other options should the Palestinians pursue that they haven't tried? Assuming you know what they have tried, in the past?

CM · Post by CM » Thu Jan 29, 2004 9:59 am

I know many are extremely surprised by the comment, but i thought i would make it evident to start a discussion, since respect the views held by a majority of posters here and that many do not know how the average muslim feels.

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.

Targetting innocents and commiting suicide in Islam are haram ie sins. So these so-called martyrs will end up in hell. I dont agree with the moral justification or the so called religious one. There is no justification for the attacks. However they are an excellent military strategy to ensure that the their cause is not side lined.

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.

Neither is acceptable to either party nor can it be justified morally. It is not acceptable by legal international law yet it happens. I find no difference between 8 palestinian civilians dying to israeli bullets, than 8 israelis dying to a suicide bomber attack. Both target civilians. The end result is the same.

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.

I stated that i find it an acceptable means of resistance. Because that is what i feel the Palestinian people are doing. They are resisting aggression on their lands. Legally defined by the US and accepted by all nations of the world, the West Bank and Gaza Strip are Palestinian territories. According to legal norms of warfare, land is returned at the end of a ceasefire. This did not happen in the case of Israel. The land was kept and the UN defined it as Palestinian land. If the Israeli army is going to excute military action in land that is not theirs, they should expect a resistance.

The Palestinian people are poor with no economy and no military training. They can not fight the Israeli army. It would suicide. So they choose to target the Israeli people. Just to point out the Israeli army targets palestinian people. Both sides do it. Yet the ones that get the majority of the blame are the Palestinian people.

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.

Now over the past two years i have become far more miltant in my views than before. During that period i have lost 2 friends to the israeli army. One sadly was part of the Seeds for Peace movement (one that believes in peace and not in the agenda of Hamas or Islamic Jihad and is a joint Israeli and Palestinian initiative).

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.
2. The two most militarily advanced muslim nations are targetted as terrorist nations. Pakistan and Iran.
3. Israel is allowed to violate international law and conduct while muslim nations are condemned for actions of fringe luantic groups.

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).

There are many more issues to be added but i guess this would be enough. I will try to respond to everybody's comments individually soon.

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Jan 29, 2004 10:07 am

According to legal norms of warfare, land is returned at the end of a ceasefire. This did not happen in the case of Israel.

@Fas, at the risk of grubbing in details, I would ask for some clarification. Are you stating that after a ceasefire is over and war resumes, land that's taken is automatically returned? This doesn't appear to make sense to me. Or do you mean that after a treaty has been signed, land is automatically returned? That last would be incorrect. Historically, one of two conditions are agreed upon by all parties to a treaty following an invasion: either the territorial lines that existed before the invasion are resumed, or the territorial lines that currently exist are acknowledged to be binding and legal. But again, all parties to the conflict must sign off on the deal.

CM · Post by CM » Thu Jan 29, 2004 10:19 am

Fable according to practiced norms land is returned. This has happened in all cases of modern warfare. Land was returned in the Iran - Iraq war of the 80s. Land was returned in all Pakistan - Indian wars. The same allowed to all territorial conflicts in Africa.

Even though legally they has to be an agreement. Defacto following international practices the land should be returned. In either case the palestinian lands were not handed back to Jordan, Egypt or Syria.

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.

Anyway legally the land has been defined by the UN as Palestinian terriotry, not israeli. Honestly from what i know of international law from my IR classes, what is practiced and what is written sometimes are not the same.

The practice was to return lands. Israel did not follow that practice so the UN defined it as Palestinian Territory.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Thu Jan 29, 2004 10:19 am

@Fable: Just briefly, I haven't even read Fas new post (will do tonight)...but Fas must be referring to the Geneva convention, which is the international legal framework for war.