Suicide Bombers

[fable]

Fable according to practiced norms land is returned. This has happened in all cases of modern warfare.

All cases? After WWI, for example, the Allied powers completely re-drew the boundaries of Europe as they wished, and did not return land they'd taken. After WWII, boundaries were redrawn again. When the Soviet Union invaded what became its satellite nations over time, the only one from which they withdrew was Afghanistan--and that was because it was an untenable war, not because of any recognized international principle. The rest of the satellites remained their de facto possessions.

Similarly, Indonesia invaded East Timor in 1975, and did not withdraw for approximately twenty-five years. They wouldn't have done so in any case, if the new Indonesian regime wasn't so anxious to show the world (and gain much needed financial support) that they weren't the old regime.

I'm not stating this take-and-keep idea is the only one, but that the idea of take-and-return isn't the sole operative international principle.

[Aegis]

My only comment on the matter.

As Malcom X once said: "By any means necessary"

I personally don't see many remaining means left for the Palestinian people. From what I understand, and please correct me if I am misguided, every other channel of getting their plight across, and attempts to make changes, have gone virtually ignored, both my the Isreali government, as well as the world stage.

If this is what they have to do in order to get attention, should we be condemning the suicide bombers, or ourselves for ignoring it until it reached this level of intensity.

[CM]

Fable according to WWII history the US, UK and Russia defined zones of influences. The states that the USSR took over were part of its zone of influence. However the boundaries were left in tact after the USSR left.

Also a majority of germany was left as it was. The boundaries though re-drawn, they were not that far off from the reality on the ground.

East Timor was not a war. It was one country taking over a territory once its colonial master left. There was not much of an armed resistance and there was no war. So the normal rules of war dont apply.

[Xandax]

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.

But terrorisme have yet to cause any gains in any long term relations. Norht Ireland is still under UK control. The Basque country is still a part of Spain and Isreal still occupise the Western Bank. The US continues to run its forreign policy as they wish. Just to mention some of the terroristic areas.

I know that expecting such people to be rational is to much to demand, but terrorisme have never accomblished any long term strategic goals, on the contrary - all it does is turn otherwise neutral or possible friendlies against them.
The more bombs that are blown up in busses, resturants or anyother place where people gather - the less chance there will be for peacefull solutions.

And demanding that Isreal must stop their onslaughts while constantly bombing them, might not be a totally good idea either. Somebody have to take the first step - but each part always wants the other one to do that first. But stopping mindless terrorisme against innocent civilians might be one of the better places to start.
If anything they should target military objectives - but I guess such people responcible for terroristic acts aren't to comfetable with people that might fight back.

You can't blackmail the way to peace, it will never be constant and sure, but will always be uneasy and strained.

[fable]

Originally posted by CM
Fable according to WWII history the US, UK and Russia defined zones of influences. The states that the USSR took over were part of its zone of influence. However the boundaries were left in tact after the USSR left.

Not so. The boundaries between Russia and the Ukraine were withdrawn after WWII, for example. Bulgaria was allowed to keep Southern Dobrudja (which is a pretty nice place, except during the summer). Romania lost Bessarabia, the aforementioned S Dobrudja and nothern Bukovina. Yugoslavia got to keep almost everything it had seized from Italy, up to Trieste. Slovenia got sections of Italian land inhabited previously by Slovenias. Serbia was given lands that had formerly belonged to a host of nearby countries, plus part of Croatia-Slavonia. There was a lot of juggling of territory that went on there, however you cut it. The Soviet may have claimed they didn't redraw the maps for anybody. So what? Millions of people discovered otherwise; and it wouldn't be the first time that a government has made official proclamations which are in direct contradiction to the truth of the matter.

Also a majority of germany was left as it was. The boundaries though re-drawn, they were not that far off from the reality on the ground.

Your point was that "according to practiced norms land is returned. This has happened in all cases of modern warfare." My point is simply that yes, the redrawing of boundaries has repeatedly occurred. Germany applies as such an instance, both after WWI and WWII.

East Timor was not a war. It was one country taking over a territory once its colonial master left. There was not much of an armed resistance and there was no war. So the normal rules of war dont apply.

According to the Geneva Convention, an invasion does constitute an act of war, whether declared or not. W e can argue semantics, but I strongly suspect the inhabitants of East Timor and the UN saw it as such.

But this mini-thread is sorta wandering off the main topic. If you're willing to drop it, so am I.

[CM]

The PLO blackmailed their way to Oslo. The suicide bombings were the major cause of making sure Rabin agreed to the peace process.

If i remember correctly the suicide bombings started after the Israeli incursions.

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?

[fable]

Originally posted by CM
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?

Without going into any queasy attempt to define the word "terrorist," let's return to the issue of killing innocent civilians. Did Mandela ever do that?

[Xandax]

Originally posted by CM
The PLO blackmailed their way to Oslo. The suicide bombings were the major cause of making sure Rabin agreed to the peace process.

If i remember correctly the suicide bombings started after the Israeli incursions.

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?

And what strategic goal did that bring? As far as I know the situation is not excatly better in the region.

As for the freedom fighter, I don't recall Mandela blowing up a bussfull of women and children, or resturants and so on for that matter.
Any so called "freedom fighters" that blows up busses full of innocent civilians, thereamongst women and children are terrorists by most accounts.

[CM]

As with World War 2, i honestly didnt know that the land was redrawn. I was taught that the boundaries remained the same so my bad.

But then Fable not all terrorists according to the US government kill innocents. The definition include charities that have been found to be money laundring outfits for terrorists in some cases without the knowledge of the owner.

With regard to Mandela. Mandela head up the ANC which had its miltant wing the Umkhonto we Sizwe which was responsible for the killing of people and innocents. Following todays definition yeah he would be a terrorist.

Question is following your thought process is Osama Bin Laden a terrorist as he never himself killed an innocent?

Fable East Timor is a similar case to Palestine and Kashmir. In all three cases land was taken but not returned and referred to the UN which marked them as indepedent territories. So if East Timor is legally seperate, then so are palestine and Kashmir.

Indonesia followed the the UNSC rulings with regard to East Timor and liberated the territory. Israel hasnt. Anyway i consider this a tangent but we can discuss this further if you want.

@Xandax the answer is this post to your question. Osama Bin Laden has never killed a innocent. He has helped plan the events and supported some others. Following your thinking and Fables would that mean he is not a terrorist?

Edit: Xandax what about military outfits that do the same? If both commit the same act both should be consider terrorists.

[fable]

Originally posted by CM
As with World War 2, i honestly didnt know that the land was redrawn. I was taught that the boundaries remained the same so my bad.

Hardly your fault. There's a double mindset at work, here. On the one hand, boundaries were redrawn: that's fact. On the other hand, none of the governments want to acknowledge boundaries were redrawn, because 1) the big guns who ordered it would look like bullies, and 2) the governments of the little guys who were forcibly redrawn didn't want to lose their positions, and possibly their lives, for speaking out. So the books show all the redrawing, and then state no such thing happened. I've seen this repeatedly occur in "official" histories, and it never ceases to amaze me. Another example: I once read a very thorough biography of the US president, Andrew Jackson, which meitculously detailed what a disaster he was to the economy (he closed the US federal bank) and what a genocidal monster he was to the native population, ordering the forced removal and slaughter of hundreds of thousands. Yet at the end of the book, the author noted (in my recollection), "However, all of that is in the past, and Jackson can now be looked back upon as a solid, intelligent, good leader, and a fine president of the US." Doublethink is scary.

But then Fable not all terrorists according to the US government kill innocents. The definition include charities that have been found to be money laundring outfits for terrorists in some cases without the knowledge of the owner.

This is irrelevant as I see it, here, but certainly meat for another thread.

With regard to Mandela. Mandela head up the ANC which had its miltant wing the Umkhonto we Sizwe which was responsible for the killing of people and innocents. Following todays definition yeah he would be a terrorist.

Right from it's beginnings, the ANC declared that it would avoid the killing of civilians. Documents of the 80's show that Joe Slovo, one of the heads of the Umkhonto we Sizwe, did attempt to determine which operatives-in-the-field were disobeying orders and bombing buses. The ANC wasn't cynically stating one thing and doing another: it had a network of cells that weren't always under the full command of its leaders. On the other hand, some of the Palestinian organizations we're discussing have specifically stated that civilians are a legittimate target. So has bin Ladan. This is a major difference, one of intent, and of laying down plans to be pursued by one's followers.

[Xandax]

Originally posted by CM
<snip>

@Xandax the answer is this post to your question. Osama Bin Laden has never killed a innocent. He has helped plan the events and supported some others. Following your thinking and Fables would that mean he is not a terrorist?

Edit: Xandax what about military outfits that do the same? If both commit the same act both should be consider terrorists.

Well - if it was Osama that launched and funded and planned the attacks on the US - yes, he is a terrorist. Show me some evidence that Mandela planned, funded and launched possible acts of terrorisme. (Other then there was a militant wing of ANC)


The military outfit that targets and kills innocent civilians is terrorist also, yes. Nobody in their right mind would not claim that for instance the SS in Russia didn't perform terrorisme while killing countless of innocent civilians.
But we aren't talking about military outfits - we are talking about organisations devoted to wiping out civilians, to achive their goals.

I better leave this topic, before I start to say something I will regret. I find it disturbing that somebody in common sence will support such murderes. I think almost all (maybe except some of these militant terroristic organisations, that only wnat total victory) want a solution for the better of mankind, but blowing up busses with women and children will not accomplish much.

I surly hope nothing good ever will come of such sencesless murdering, I shudder at the thought of what can come of that.

[Mysteria]

First party: "They're killing our compatriotes, let's go kill theirs!"

Second party: "They're killing our compatriotes, let's go kill theirs!"

First party: see above ...

Yeah, right, great conflict solving.

"There's two things that have no boundaries: The universe and human stupidity ... although I'm not 100% sure about the universe ..."

[CM]

I would like to ensure that i dont have a monoploy on any views that pertain to muslims so i started a thread on a pakistani web forum.

The link is:

http://www.gupistan.com/forums/showthre ... did=137267

It has a very large politics section, but be warned if you read it. My nick there as here is CM. Feel free to join up but be warned it aint a great place.

Personally i would not want it to be mentioned that i post here. I like this forum and i am far more myself here. Not the flamer i am on that forum. I post my true opinions here, instead what i do to flame and entice people there. So if you do join up could i please request that you not mention that i post here or gamebanshee.

Feel free to say you know me if you guys feel i am worth even that much after this thread. But know you will be stereotyped.

Anyway once that is a poll you can see what muslims living in the west think. I dont want to be speaking on behalf of 1 billion people.

[Zelgadis]

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?

[Morlock]

Originally posted by CM
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.

A bit of history:

The first Arab-Israeli war was from 1947-1949, Israel's war of Independance. The Arabs attacked the day after the partition plan was approved, which was understandibly unacceptable to the Arabs. But what were the Arabs planning, if not conquering Israel and staying there for good?

In 1956 Israel attacked Egypt because Nasser wouldn't allow any access to the Israeli port of Eilat through the red sea. Israel conquered the Gaza strip, the entire Sinai Peninsula, the straits of Tiran and, together with France and England, also conquered the Suez canal. France and England offered a truce plan, approved by Israel, but which Nasser didn't agree to, after which he called for a general subscription. Israel responded, and beat the Egyptian army.
Ben-Gurion anounced the day after fighting ceased that Israel would evacuate the entire peninsula, with stipulation that no international forces would be placed on Israeli land after the evacuation.
The U.S.S.R and China threatened to send over half a million troups there to force Israel out, while France, The U.K. and The U.S.A said that they in turn would send their own forces, and for a time it seemed to be the setting for a mini world war.
In a two point plan, Israel evacuated all land conquered the the exception of Gaza strip. A U.N. vote of 74 to 2 called for Israel to complete the evacuation, and in a quiet night operation, the Israeli army evacuated Gaza.

In May 1967, Nasser demanded that the U.N. remove all forces from the area. Immeidatly after the U.N. evacuated, Nasser sent thousands of soldiers to the border. On May 22nd, Nasser closed the straits of Tiran to Israeli ships, something that could eventualy criple Israeli trade.
On June 5th, after Egypt and Jordan signed a defence agreement, Israel, fearing an attack, launched a first strike. Within 8 hours, Israeli planes totaly destoryed the Egyptian air force, the Jordanian air force, 2/3 of the Syrian air force, and an airport in Iraq. Within 6 days, Israel conquered The Golan Heights from Syria, the West Bank (Including the old City and east Jerusalem) from Jordan, The Gaza strip and the Sinai peninsula from Egypt.
Israel declared that it would totaly evacuate all lands captured if Egypt, Syria and Jordan would officialy acknowledge Israel's right to exist, which they refused to do. Nasser resigned, but his resignation was not accepted by the Egyptian people.

On October 6th 1973, Yom Kippur, Egypt and Syria attacked Israel, and Israel suffered great losses and after Several counter offences failed, and Israel faced defeat. But within a few days, Israel regrouped, and initially held off the offensive, and later pushed on into Syria, stopping less than 30 miles from Damasscus, and in the south, pushed through and managed to totaly incircle the Egyptian 3rd army, which numbered 20,000 troups.
A truce was reached on the 23rd of October, but the 3rd army kept on attacking, trying to breach it's way through the canal, and the Egyptian air force attacked, but all planes attempting to breach were shot down. Israel released a lot of the captives, and, following a request by the Red Cross evacuated 2000 wounded Egyptian soldiers.
On November 11th an official 6 point truce was signed. The two countries agreed to A. A total cessation of hostilities B. Negotiations must begin to returning to the October 22nd borders C. Israel is to allow a daily supply of food and medicine to the city of Suez D. Israel is to allow non military supplies to the 3rd army E. The U.N. would send troups to guard the road from Suez to Cairo and F. Prisoner exchange must begin immediatly.
On November 15th, the prisoner exchange began. Within a week, 241 Israeli prisoners were freed, as were 8,301 Egyptian soldiers and 3 Iraqi pilots. Israel lodged a complaint with the U.N., stating the dozens of soldiers that were captured healthy were murdered after the truce was reached.

In 1979 a piece plan signed with Egypt, and in 1982 Menchem Begin, the first right wing Israel PM, evacuated the Sinai peninsula, drawing huge critisism from supporters.

[dragon wench]

Originally posted by Zelgadis
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?

I don't necessarily support this POV, but I believe the argument is that military personnel, given the nature of the job, should expect to become targets...

Though... given that military service is compulsary in Israel (please correct me if I'm wrong Morlock ) I don't think the argument holds much water....

[smass]

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?

War is hell. War means killing folks. Conflict between combatants in a war is one thing - killing non-combatants - intentionally is quite another.

Lets not be coy here. The US, Israel, and any other nation that has waged war has killed innocents. You don't drop a 10,000 pound bomb on a military target with any guarantees that civilians will not be harmed. In the best of all worlds (a "Candide" reality) there would be no such thing as war. In reality - war is an all to common fact of life.

There is a not so subtle difference between the collateral damage that war inflicts on innocents and the premeditated, intentional murder of innocents. I, quite frankly, find it impossible to condone murder for any cause. I fact, I find the whole idea so incomprehensible and abhorrible that it scares the **** out of me. How do you reason, negotiate, or come to any kind of agreement with people who have no regard for or respect for your right to keep breathing?

The intent of suicide bombers is to terrorize at any and all costs up to and including blowing up babies and children. CM has as much as said this verbatim. People who think this way cannot be negotiated with - if someone draws a knife or a gun to kill me or my family - you bet I will do my best to kill him first. I will engage him in mortal combat. I will not go into a restuarant where his sons and daughters are eating a meal with their mother and set off a bomb and kill them.

How does a human being get to the point where murder is a viable option? Answer = hate. Hate manifested in racism requires the de-humanization of ones enemy. Justifications for hate are often cultural - but usually religious in nature. More people have been killed in the name of religion than any other cause. Typically the religious fanatic feels his own view of the world is the only one - and justify's his actions using the us vs. them mentality. The world to them is made up of two groups - believers and unbelievers. Jews and gentiles. Muslims and Infidels. Once a person begins thinking in these terms the next step is to consider non-believers to be less than human - and to not value their lives - thus justifying murder.

Truly a scary thought.

[Morlock]

Originally posted by CM
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.

If they stopped the bombings, they'd be morally right. No one would have any reason to not support a Palestinian state 100%.

And for the record- I am totaly for a Palestinian state, including total evacuation of all settlements.
But this is only for a Palestinian state- I am totaly against giving the Golan heights to Seria.

Originally posted by CM
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.

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.

First of all, it was 9 or 10 Palestinians. And only five of them were innocent civilians caught in the crossfire. Three School children and one bystander were killed. The other people killed were militants who were going to be arrested but fired back at the soldiers.
All 10 of the Israelis killed this morning were innocent civilians, perpusley targeted.

Originally posted by CM
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.

He has personally planed several suicide bombings. Only someone who supports suicide bombings could call him a diplomat.
And Arafat black mailed Rabin in Oslo, and then abused the deal by giving the guns given to him for the Palestinain police to Hamas to kill Israelis. And Rabin was killed for it.

Originally posted by Mysteria
First party: "They're killing our compatriotes, let's go kill theirs!"

Second party: "They're killing our compatriotes, let's go kill theirs!"

First party: see above ...

Yeah, right, great conflict solving.

"There's two things that have no boundaries: The universe and human stupidity ... although I'm not 100% sure about the universe ..."

A biased observation:
True this is a stupid way of thinking, but I look at it this way. The Palestinians kill Israeli civilians, and praise the killers. The Israel enters Plestinian cities, detains and/or kills known militants, with several innocent bystanders killed by mistake. Israel sends an apology and creates an inquery board, and for a few weeks or months, there is relative quiet. Israel eases restriction, eventualy leaving the town. Palestinians send in suicide bombers, killing innocent civilians. Israel enters Palestinian cities, there is relative quiet, Israel eases restricions, Palestinians attack again.
Note- the Palestinians attacks don't drop for lack of trying, but because of the increased efficiency of the Israeli army. And I think the best argument for the security fence -which I am against right now, but totaly for if it leaves the settlements with the Palestinians- is that less innocent civilians on both sides (although mostly Israelis) were killed in 2003 than 2002.

Originally posted by Zelgadis
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?

I am (as you can naturally deduce) a very proud Israeli, very proud of my army, which I believe to be the best, most proven and the most moral army in the world. Of course- one of the main complaints is it's lack of morality but I say this:
A. The army carries out the orders and policies of the government.
B. I believe that any other army in the world under similar circumstances would be less apologetic, more violent, and more civilains would be killed. Last year, (in august, I believe) the Israeli army got info that the heads of the Hamas, including spiritual leader Ahmed Yassin, were meeting at a certain building in Ramalla (I believe it was Ramalla). Once in the past, Israel used a 1 kilo bomb to assassinate a leading member of a terrorist group, and in doing so, killed several innocent civilians. So in August, even though there was concrete proof that the heads of the group most detrimental to Israel's security would be at a certain place at a certain time, Israel used a 1/4 kilo bomb, in an attempt to reduce civilain fatalities. It was not enough, and all the leaders of Hamas got away. But the point is, even in face of the possible eradication of the leadership of Hamas, Israel learned from it's previous errors, and used a significantly smaller bomb, which was succesfull in avoiding civilian fatalities.
I doubt that any other country would risk not killing off it's leading terrorists in face of civilain casualties.

Following that long prelude- I could understand if the terrorist bomber were used only against soldiers. As any pro Palestinian person would tell you- Hamas and Jihad Islami don't have the power to fight the very organized I.D.F. (Israeli Defence Force), and suicide bombers are the best weapons it has. So aside from the total waste of Palestinian children and parents, I can understand that. There's a saying in hebrew that is very basic- (Transliterating) "Be milchama kemo be milchama"- which, translated literally means "In war like in war". Soldiers are meant to fight, and, if nessecary, die for their country.

EDIT: I've just seen Smass' post, and I think the above offers my view on that.

Originally posted by dragon wench
Though... given that military service is compulsary in Israel (please correct me if I'm wrong Morlock ) I don't think the argument holds much water....

I've never thought of this aspect, as conscription was always compulsary here. All men between 18 and 21 here are soldiers (though there are tens of thousands of exceptions to that rule).

[Morlock]

I got mixed up between the quote and edit buttons, and my acount won't let me delete this. Sorry- stupid double post.

[Zelgadis]

I think my post was misunderstood. To rephrase, why do some people consider the life of a 18-21 yearold male who may or may not have volunteered to be in the armed forces of his country seen as more expendable than than a civilian?