Suicide Bombers

Luis Antonio · Post by **Luis Antonio** » Thu Feb 05, 2004 8:16 am

Thanx CM, I just thought that will be something cool to know... Cause I think I will do the same, even being a calm individual. I only dont think that I would do that with a bomb, and not on the same way, but I understand you position.

CM · Post by CM » Thu Feb 05, 2004 8:22 am

Thanks Luis.

To all i will respond to this thread once i fulfill my promise to scayde.

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Thu Feb 05, 2004 10:32 am

Killing civilians
I do agree with the idea that under any conflict one should step out of the way to minimize civilian casualties. How much effort that is enough depends imo on the relative strength of the opponents, i.e. I expect more of a nation witch has a military advantage, and much more if it have a huge advantage. Applied to the struggle for freedom in Palestine I think that settlers, military and Likud politicians would be valid to kill but other civilians would not, Assuming that it was a reasonably effective method.

Difference between civilians and military
The difference between civilian and military lives is imo the degree of responsibility they have in the conflict. Being directly involved in fighting makes you more responsible than just living in the warring nation, and actively creating political support for the war makes you more responsible than not doing so. How difficult it is to decrease your support for the war also matters, if you are fighting in a professional army you are more responsible than in a conscript army, and if desertion is punished by death you are less responsible than if desertion is punished by imprisonment.

Difference between targeting and accepting loss
This is as far as I can see rather irrelevant. Is killing 1000 civilians completely wrong, but killing 999 civilians and one soldier totally acceptable because you were aiming at the soldier? There is of course a difference if killing 999 civilians and one soldier takes you much closer to winning the war than 1000 civilians, but this is not related to the difference between targeting and accepting. The only thing that should matter is real numbers. Killing civilians is the same whether it is your primary method of winning the war, or just an effect of targeting something else.

Regarding the discussion so far the widespread indignation over CMs opinion strikes me in many cases as either hypocritical or ignorant. The view that targeting civilians is not wrong have been expressed by many posters at this forum, but while causing heated discussion it never resulted in the same level of global denunciation.

Edited for missing word.

smass · Post by **smass** » Thu Feb 05, 2004 12:12 pm

Regarding the discussion so far the widespread indignation over CMs opinion strikes me in many cases as either hypocritical or ignorant

Funny - I feel exactly the same way about the limited support CM's opinion has received...

Luis Antonio · Post by **Luis Antonio** » Thu Feb 05, 2004 1:43 pm

Originally posted by Dottie
Killing civilians

Difference between civilians and military

Difference between targeting and accepting loss

Regarding the discussion so far the widespread indignation over CMs opinion strikes me in many cases as either hypocritical or ignorant.

You must see that we have some cultural factors that must be analyzed. You're placing the blame for it on CM - And THAT is ignorance. He is not guilty, and this is my point, so there is no need to kick him around.
Those people think that dying and killing are just their freedom, their heaven, and their education and internal sistems of cultural transmitting have shaped their minds, as we should expect.
The Vikings used to charge into towns decided to kill everybody on theyr way, in Berserker state, and a Viking warrior is one of the most scariest visions for a middle age european town defender. They were even eager to die and go to Valhala, or something, and death meant nothing to them. Was it theyr fault? No, I don't think so.

Is it my fault if I've been raised somewhere, and the dominant culture over the world disagrees with what I do, but dont really care at all? Do you guys care at all? Are you listening to the reasons? Are you thinking s***t up to solve this problem?

There is a difference between culture analisys and ignorance, I'm sure.

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Feb 05, 2004 3:48 pm

Originally posted by Luis Antonio
You must see that we have some cultural factors that must be analyzed. You're placing the blame for it on CM - And THAT is ignorance.

You've wandered into the wrong party, @Luis Antonio. Dottie's arguing for the opposite of what you're thinking he is.

Scayde · Post by **Scayde** » Thu Feb 05, 2004 8:13 pm

Originally posted by CM
Sorry i havent replied but i spoke to scayde for roughly 3 hours and promised her that i would give my decision a second review. Re-think what i have sad and decided. Until i have come to a conclusion i dont think it would be fair for me to continue defending something i am not sure if i agree with.

Thank you CM...*HUG*.

Luis Antonio · Post by **Luis Antonio** » Fri Feb 06, 2004 4:46 am

Originally posted by fable
You've wandered into the wrong party, @Luis Antonio. Dottie's arguing for the opposite of what you're thinking he is.

Then I think I owe him apologies... Sorry boys, It seems I gotta join an english class first... But at least I left my point!

BTW, calling my english teacher right now...

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Fri Feb 06, 2004 9:32 am

@Luis Antonio: No offence taken.

Although I do not necessarily agree with your view that cultural background always takes away responsibility I agree that it plays a part in it, but that discussion does perhaps belong in another thread.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Fri Feb 06, 2004 10:04 am

Originally posted by Luis Antonio
You must see that we have some cultural factors that must be analyzed. You're placing the blame for it on CM - And THAT is ignorance. He is not guilty, and this is my point, so there is no need to kick him around.
Those people think that dying and killing are just their freedom, their heaven, and their education and internal sistems of cultural transmitting have shaped their minds, as we should expect.
The Vikings used to charge into towns decided to kill everybody on theyr way, in Berserker state, and a Viking warrior is one of the most scariest visions for a middle age european town defender. They were even eager to die and go to Valhala, or something, and death meant nothing to them. Was it theyr fault? No, I don't think so.

Is it my fault if I've been raised somewhere, and the dominant culture over the world disagrees with what I do, but dont really care at all? Do you guys care at all? Are you listening to the reasons? Are you thinking s***t up to solve this problem?

There is a difference between culture analisys and ignorance, I'm sure.

You don't see us scandinavians running amok in various countries slaugthering and pillaging anymore, now do you?
And comparing todays world with how it was thousand years ago is kind of a mute point.

People evolve, cultures change.

Hiding behind and using culture as an excuse is a poor exucse in my oppinion - it is just a mean to avoid taking responcibility.

"Oh, but it is okay for me to bomb that woman and child because it is our culture to hate....."
nope - dosen't hold water.
Then it effectively was okay and excusable *and* understandeble for the Nazies to act as they did doing the Second World War, for instance towards the Jews, because they were told to hate them, it was their "culture"?

And so on ...

Luis Antonio · Post by **Luis Antonio** » Fri Feb 06, 2004 10:28 am

Originally posted by Xandax

People evolve, cultures change.

"Oh, but it is okay for me to bomb that woman and child because it is our culture to hate....."
nope - dosen't hold water.
Then it effectively was okay and excusable *and* understandeble for the Nazies to act as they did doing the Second World War, for instance towards the Jews, because they were told to hate them, it was their "culture"?

And so on ...

My point is not that cultural factors retrieve guilt for these acts.
I think that the wrong thing was, as happened in some posts, people were discussing as if CM was responsible for all that destruction and stupidity. He is not. He only told what he thinks. And what he thinks, right of wrong, is a mirror image of the culture he lives in.
Today a train has been blown up in Russia. People think this is a terrorist act. My opinion is that it is wrong to kill. My opinion is that it is even worst to kill inocents. And if I would kill for some thing that happened in my life, I would like to take down only the responsible for my suffering, not the rest.
Well, my point is simple: Suicide is not an option (that's why I havent suiceded last year). Killing is not an option.
That is one of my previous posts. I still think they are not options. But in certain conditions, people kill others. Why is that? In Brazil, revenge is focused - for example, I want to kill him cause he has done that for me. The cultural factor taken us to this. Now, Hamaz people tell I want to kill theyr people, cause they are our disgrace. Guilt never ceases. Just being a member of the enemy comunity is enough to justify a killing. Bingo. Cultural factors.
Not an excuse, but the tip of the problem, thats for sure, and a very important thing to find out how to disarm this, how to disable this. There must be a way, dont you think?
People evolve, cultures change.
To what we need or as we want?

Added this - And sorry, I used your people just as an example. Could have been the Zulus, the Yanomamis, or anyone, never meant that you are still doing this or something.

RandomThug · Post by **RandomThug** » Fri Feb 06, 2004 1:29 pm

oooo k.

I've read a bunch of this, I cant claim I've gone over everything. Sorry fable sometimes your facts just well there just not riviting

Heh... but I feel like voicing my opinion..

War is a natural thing, like the lion defends his den man will claim land for his own.

Killing is natural. I know many people think murder is horribly wrong but I... well I think it sucks and I know I definitly wouldn't want to die. I mean I live in LA and the thought of being killed by terrorists (I mean its either newyork or La in my mind you know...) sucks ass. I mean it isn't fun. But well lifes life. War is going on, my country the place i pay taxes the place i vote is blowing the hell outa places all over the world. I got friends and family in the military some just supporting some actually in bahgdad with a kill count.

This makes me part of this war as much as my bro who is just fixing f16's in Utah.

I can understand the "need" to be a suicide bomber (Not the need to attack civilians I am speaking souly of the weapon a suicide bomber is). Weapons of war are exactly that, weapons. I see those who strap a bomb to thier chest, crash thier plane into an aircraft carrier or those who just charge head first leaving caution to the wind. Weapons of war, not weapons of terror. The actual suicide bomber (remember not talking about targets, just the weapon) is a very usefull weapon. I mean look at Nam, those guys who'd run into camp dive into the officer tent and boom.. Works well.

War is the peak of mans beast like qualities, to kill to hunt to destroy to prolong the survival of his tribe.

Now heres what I think of these weapons being used on strictly civilian people. When two men battle to death for food/land/religion, when a wolf stalks his prey when a hawk comes down on his dinner it is a thing of nature. It is always constant. I cant begin to claim I understand hte plight of either peoples... but from what I gather the Palestinian people are using such devastating weapons of war on those who are innocent. I am not sure about the Isreal people and how thier state is going on, what the average person gives to their military I can not claim it is the same as I. In which I believe I definitly aid to the bombing of Iraq with my taxes, so I do not believe in any sense it is ok for them to target those people. If the suicide bombers regularly hit military places and rarely hit civilians but still did I would not condone it so as I do, because war is hell and innocent people die.

The conflict is war and in war people do drastic things. Horrible horrible things. Hitler to the jews, blacks, gypsies etc, American to the Indians (and Im not talking about blankets im talking about the stuff I've read in which men were issued to use the butt of thier guns to save bullets when killing the youth) Iraq gassing the kurds.

Some of them we can justify, usually the winning party does the justifying "Hey look we did this for the common good of everyone" or "they were the worse at the time" But the reality is it is all "bad" but neccisary. Life could never continue without death.

Ok I tend to ramble and not make a point or direct people to thinking I mean something else. My point shorter...

Suicide bombers in Palestine attack those who do not directly wish to combat with them, Isreal retalites (and sometime attacks first) those who wish battle with them. In my opinion the oppresed state that wishes to win a war should never concentrate on civilians, it wont succeed militarly ever. I think thier random bombings of children and mothers is not just horrible cruel but moronic. I mean like someone else posted, when has this worked?

As an American I was for the invasion of Iraq for whatever reasons. In our invasion children and mothers have died. This means i can not stand up and say "they are just so horrible and evil and bad and oh my god humans shouldn't kill death is bad ooo no".

I would be a hypocrite.

It is common ground to believe we are above murder but every day so many people die it only proves we are still just animals who like to pretend we are more important than the common dog.

Some on this board have experianced these bombings, some have known those who would willingly do so. Some are so ignorant they claim they know when they cant percieve even the notion. I like to pretend im knowledgable but ignorant at the same time... my words come from the mouth of a Southern Californian resident, my worst danger is traffic. Not a bomb on a bus.

War is hell and I dont mean tv war hell I dont mean "Oh wow 12 innocents died today" I mean Hilter Hell I mean Nuclear bomb hell, I mean cutting up corspses and throwing them over castle walls hell. Stuff we cant even imagine.

I guess my stance is that Palestine is dumb, excuse my ignorance or my rash use of the term.

Were all just animals trying to pretend were not. Is CM horrible for believing that bombing civilians is justified, no. Is he incorrect in the sense its actually doing something good for the cause of hte palestinians, Yes. You show me a war in which one side fought without doing horrible things that we dont even want to imagine, and I'll show you fantasy.

p.s. if you got a big problem with what I posted PM me, I dont intend to flame on this board.

VoodooDali · Post by **VoodooDali** » Fri Feb 06, 2004 2:01 pm

Ethical Relativism

Ethical relativism is the theory that morality is relative to the norms of one's culture. The same action may be morally right in one culture but be morally wrong in another. There are no moral standards that can be applied to all peoples at all times. The only moral standards against which a culture's practices can be judged are its own.

I bring all of this up because most of the arguments and misunderstandings on this thread are based in differing view of ethical relativism.

There are many problems with ethical relativism (and its relative, cultural relativism). I try to list them below (this does not imply I agree with all of them!):

1. If ethical relativism is correct, and a culture's moral standards can only be judged by the culture itself, then there can be no common framework for resolving moral disputes or for reaching agreement on ethical matters among members of different societies. If you want to read some interesting stuff on this, look up the controversy that was stirred up (to this day) by the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. To a pure ethical relativist, such a charter is meaningless.

2. While the moral practices of cultures may differ, the basic moral principles underlying these practices do not. For example, with the Kalahari bushpeople, killing one's infant before they have taken their first breath is not murder. This is done in instances where the mother already has an infant and allowing the new infant to survive would ensure the demise of both children. While such a practice would be condemned in our society, we would agree with the bushpeople on the underlying moral principle -- the duty to provide the best care for one's children. Cultures, then, may differ in the way that they apply certain basic moral principles but agree on the principles themselves.

3. Some morals are culturally relative whereas others are not. Certain practices, such as customs of dress, may depend on local custom, whereas other practices, such as slavery, torture, or political repression, may be governed by universal moral standards and judged wrong despite the many other differences that exist among cultures. Simply because some practices are relative does not mean that all practices are relative.

4. If the rightness or wrongness of an action depends on a culture's norms, then you must obey the norms of your culture and to act differently from those norms is to act immorally. This means that if you are a member of a culture that believes that a woman must be stoned to death for adultery, then you must accept stoning women to death as morally right. But such a view leads to social conformity and leaves no room for reform or improvement in a culture. Also, members of the same culture may hold different views on practices. In the USA, for example, a wide variety of moral opinions exists on issues such as the death penalty, abortion, welfare, and so on. What are the true cultural norms when the culture itself lacks consensus?

5. Universal moral standards can exist even if some moral practices and beliefs vary among cultures. In other words, we can acknowledge cultural differences in moral practices and beliefs and still maintain that some of these practices and beliefs are morally wrong. The practice of slavery in pre-Civil war U.S. or the practice of apartheid in South Africa is wrong despite the beliefs of those cultures. The treatment of the Jews in Nazi Germany is morally reprehensible regardless of the moral beliefs of Nazi society.

6. As a theory for justifying moral practices and beliefs, ethical relativism fails to recognize that some societies have better reasons for holding their views than others.

However- even if you reject the theory of ethical relativism, you still have to acknowledge the fact that ethical relativism raises important issues. Ethical relativism reminds us that different groups have different moral beliefs and that our beliefs are deeply influenced by culture. It also encourages us to explore the reasons underlying beliefs that differ from our own, while challenging us to examine our reasons for the beliefs and values we hold.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sun Feb 08, 2004 6:53 pm

However- even if you reject the theory of ethical relativism, you still have to acknowledge the fact that ethical relativism raises important issues. Ethical relativism reminds us that different groups have different moral beliefs and that our beliefs are deeply influenced by culture. It also encourages us to explore the reasons underlying beliefs that differ from our own, while challenging us to examine our reasons for the beliefs and values we hold.

I suspect the US State Department personnel giving that briefing were out sick the day Dubya and his staff were due...

Nippy · Post by **Nippy** » Mon Feb 09, 2004 3:55 am

Originally posted by Dottie

Regarding the discussion so far the widespread indignation over CMs opinion strikes me in many cases as either hypocritical or ignorant. The view that targeting civilians is wrong have been expressed by many posters at this forum, but while causing heated discussion it never resulted in the same level of global denunciation.

I'm not getting involved with the argument at large, but what we are on about is a deliberate targetting of civilian individuals, not a tragic mistake.

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Mon Feb 09, 2004 7:31 am

Originally posted by Nippy
I'm not getting involved with the argument at large, but what we are on about is a deliberate targetting of civilian individuals, not a tragic mistake.

I understood that much. I did just notice that I missed a word in my post though. What I intended to say was that the view that targeting civilians is not wrong have been expressed previously on this forum without the fuss.

Nippy · Post by **Nippy** » Mon Feb 09, 2004 8:50 am

Originally posted by Dottie
I understood that much. I did just notice that I missed a word in my post though. What I intended to say was that the view that targeting civilians is not wrong have been expressed previously on this forum without the fuss.

Then you understood my query.

My apologies...

BaronTx · Post by **BaronTx** » Tue Feb 10, 2004 8:24 pm

I am truly shocked by some of what I have read here.

Targeting civilians is evil and should not be considered even in the harshest standards of war. Unfortunately world history is chalked full of such things and I fear will always be part of the dark side of humanity.

One thing I have noticed regarding Iraeli conduct is that military officers are starting to balk at orders they consider terroristic. And unless I am way off the mark, it is because of their governments policy towards the Palestinians. Not anything these so-called "suicide" bombings have done

Aegis · Post by **Aegis** » Tue Feb 10, 2004 9:54 pm

A couple of things.

First, bring ethics into the debate, however noble the thought, it useless because morality is subjective, however you look at it. Someone will always exist to believe something is wrong, if you believe it to be right. It'd be nice to have a standard set of morales and ethics in this world, but I don't think it's going to happen.

Second, before condemning the targetting of civilians in suicide bombings, I'd like to draw attention to some past events in which civilians were targetted, and on a much larger scale. The Fire Bombing of both Dresdan and Tokyo, as well as the dropping of the Atomic Bombs. Fifty years ago, I know, but still, they were dropped on cities filled with civilians (the Fire Bombing had a higher casualty rate then the Atomic Bombs, even).

With that said, I'd like to bring up my initial point which has still gone unaddressed:

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.

If someone can tell me that we, as a world society, has done anything productive for the Palestinian people, I'd really like to hear it, because the way it looks, we favoured the Isreali people over them, and subsequently ignored them, and now we have a crisis on our hands.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Wed Feb 11, 2004 2:24 am

Originally posted by Aegis
A couple of things.

First, bring ethics into the debate, however noble the thought, it useless because morality is subjective, however you look at it. Someone will always exist to believe something is wrong, if you believe it to be right. It'd be nice to have a standard set of morales and ethics in this world, but I don't think it's going to happen.
<snip>

That can then be used to "justify" the Holocust, Slavery and other athrocities, because it was "moral" in the places/cultures it existed in.

Originally posted by Aegis

Second, before condemning the targetting of civilians in suicide bombings, I'd like to draw attention to some past events in which civilians were targetted, and on a much larger scale. The Fire Bombing of both Dresdan and Tokyo, as well as the dropping of the Atomic Bombs. Fifty years ago, I know, but still, they were dropped on cities filled with civilians (the Fire Bombing had a higher casualty rate then the Atomic Bombs, even

So because such things were done before - it justifies using them again ??
Then we can all justify all "bad" things in existance, by the fact that other bad things has/does happen.