NationStates Jolt Archive

I've noticed unnamed people trying to defend certain people who i'd say are terrorists. So what do you think about Suicide bombers, are they murderering terrorists or heroic freedom fighters?

I've noticed unnamed people trying to defend certain people who i'd say are terrorists. So what do you think about Suicide bombers, are they murderering terrorists or heroic freedom fighters?

This seems pretty one-sided. Even strong anti-Israelites or anti-Palestinians are against open terrorism and suicide-bombing. I mean, it's a first-class war crime!

This seems pretty one-sided. Even strong anti-Israelites or anti-Palestinians are against open terrorism and suicide-bombing. I mean, it's a first-class war crime!
why one sided?
I had three options, one for each side and other.

why one sided?
I had three options, one for each side and other.

I said it seems one sided because the vast (and I do mean vast) majority of people think suicide bombing is wrong. Hence, you're probably not going to get much of a debate out of it.

Suicide bombers are just brainwashed. They are no freedom fighters or terrorists. They're pawns, puppets. Lethal ones I'm sure, but they accomplish very little. There are people behind them who have the bigger picture. The bombers themselves are just ignorant for thinking they will get to heaven in no other way.

Not all suicide bombers are the same.
Get more specific. Your question doesn't mean anything.
Snipers : are they freedom fighters or terrorists?

I said it seems one sided because the vast (and I do mean vast) majority of people think suicide bombing is wrong. Hence, you're probably not going to get much of a debate out of it.
Yes, but i'm interested in seeing if there are ANY people who think that what they're doing is right. Maybe there are some Muslim extremists on NS?

Not all suicide bombers are the same.
Get more specific. Your question doesn't mean anything.
Snipers : are they freedom fighters or terrorists?

How is a sniper a suicide bomber?

Yes, but i'm interested in seeing if there are ANY people who think that what they're doing is right. Maybe there are some Muslim extremists on NS?

Well, good luck.

Not all suicide bombers are the same.
Get more specific. Your question doesn't mean anything.
Snipers : are they freedom fighters or terrorists?
The title was "Suicide Bombers", not snipers, not pilots, Suicide bombers. You know, the people who walk into crowded civilian areas with explosives strapped to them and blow themselves up?

How is a sniper a suicide bomber?
He is not.
I was making the point that sniping is a method, like sucide bombing is a method.
Some snipers are terrorists, some are freedom fighters some are soldiers.
Same for the suicide bombers in palestine. Some are targetting the military, some are targeting civilians, some are targetting symbols to get media attention. They're not one group. If your talking about Hamas or about Islamic Jihad, or the PLO those are groups, but suicide bomber is too broad.

The title was "Suicide Bombers", not snipers, not pilots, Suicide bombers. You know, the people who walk into crowded civilian areas with explosives strapped to them and blow themselves up?
OK you didn't get the point at all.
Suicide bombing is not necessarily happening in a civilian area.

some suicide bombers are soldiers?

some suicide bombers are soldiers?
No

He is not.
I was making the point that sniping is a method, like sucide bombing is a method.
Some snipers are terrorists, some are freedom fighters some are solders.
Same for the suicide bombers in palestine. Some are targetting the military, some are targeting civilians, some are targetting symbols to get media attention. They're not one group. If your talking about Hamas or about Islamic Jihad, or the PLO those are groups, but suicide bomber is too broad.

Um, Ok. So, do your opinions greatly change between these groups? If the original post wasn't specific enough, clarify. So, in this case, do you excuse a suicide bomber if he targets the military? That still sounds dishonorable to me...

Um, Ok. So, do your opinions greatly change between these groups? If the original post wasn't specific enough, clarify. So, in this case, do you excuse a suicide bomber if he targets the military? That still sounds dishonorable to me...
If he targets the military he is not a terrorist. It makes a huge difference to me.

If he targets the military he is not a terrorist. It makes a huge difference to me.

Fine. But is he still guilty of war crimes regardless of his "status" as a non-terrorist?

Yes, but i'm interested in seeing if there are ANY people who think that what they're doing is right. Maybe there are some Muslim extremists on NS?

This is NS, if you wanted people to argue that suicide bombers are doing the right thing you should have phrased the question differently.

For example:

It is clear to me that suicide bombers are evil brainwashed cowards who have been tricked into doing these foul deeds by radical islamists. I am a christian conservative and I believe George Bush is right to condemn them. What do you think fellow NS'ers?

Then you would have instantly got a bazillion posts accusing you of:

i) Trolling

ii) Being a [redneck/inbred/idiot/fascist/nazi/moron/labotomy patient] (delete as appropriate)

iii) Attempting to overthrow democracy.

Mixed in amongst that would have been many impassioned statements declaring suicide bombers to be worthy soldiers in the battle against global domination by [evil capitalists/ultra-religious white supremacist christians/George W. Bush] (delete as appropriate).

My advice is to ask the mods to delete this thread, wait a week or so, and then try again.

Fine. But is he still guilty of war crimes regardless of his "status" as a non-terrorist?
no. War crime is something else.

no. War crime is something else.

How so? Don't worry, I'm not one of those pricks that requires 15 referrable internet sources and a full definiton. What constitutes a war crime and why doesn't suicide bombing apply?

Nice one, DeaconDove.

I think the point is that suicide bombing is always wrong, even if there is a cause. For example, I consider myself to be pro-Israel, and think that palestinian suicide bombers are terrorists, and yet I recognise there is a reason why they do it...

It's not really a clear-cut question though.

There are two classes of suicide bombers, and you did not cover these two classes. You bunched them up into one class, as I expected you might:

1) There are the suicide bombers who rush into civilian areas and blow themselves up. This is to cause terror and unrest. I do not approve of their methods, and neither does Islam.

2) There are the suicide bombers who load explosives into their trucks, and rush at an Israeli checkpoint. They end up blowing up an Israeli humvee, a few Israeli soldiers, and rendering a Merkava tank useless. These are freedom fighters. It is a very viable method of warfare. Not the best, but definately the most viable when you consider the state the Palestinian heroes are in.

But then again, you don't hear about the second class in Israel (or America, for that matter), do you?.. You hear about busses and cafes being blown up. Go figure.. :rolleyes:


In conclusion, the poll is extremely unfair to the heroes of Palestine (#2, in case you are still confused :rolleyes: ) and I refeuse to vote until you adjust the choices to distinguish between one and two.

How so? Don't worry, I'm not one of those pricks that requires 15 referrable internet sources and a full definiton. What constitutes a war crime and why doesn't suicide bombing apply?
I think war crime is related to the geneva convention.
Intentionally killing civilians is a war crime.
Suicide bombing does not apply because it is a method, just like sniping is not a war crime, unless it is intentionally done on civilians.

There are two classes of suicide bombers, and you did not cover these two classes. You bunched them up into one class, as I expected you might:

1) There are the suicide bombers who rush into civilian areas and blow themselves up. This is to cause terror and unrest. I do not approve of their methods, and neither does Islam.

2) There are the suicide bombers who load explosives into their trucks, and rush at an Israeli checkpoint. They end up blowing up an Israeli humvee, a few Israeli soldiers, and rendering a Merkava tank useless. These are freedom fighters. It is a very viable method of warfare. Not the best, but definately the most viable when you consider the state the Palestinian heroes are in.

But then again, you don't hear about the second class in Israel (or America, for that matter), do you?.. You hear about busses and cafes being blown up. Go figure.. :rolleyes:


In conclusion, the poll is extremely unfair to the heroes of Palestine (#2, in case you are still confused :rolleyes: ) and I refeuse to vote until you adjust the choices to distinguish between one and two.


To be fair, you do occasionally hear about option 2. But they always seem to be in the vast minority, and certainly don’t receive much attention from the media. Probably because they are not referred to as suicide bombers.

Now whether they are the minority of attacks I don’t know. But you raise a good point, that they should be distinguished from those who are commonly termed suicide bomber.

How so? Don't worry, I'm not one of those pricks that requires 15 referrable internet sources and a full definiton. What constitutes a war crime and why doesn't suicide bombing apply?
Law of war (and violations against this law are war crimes) generally protects civilians and POW's. Killing soldiers isn't actually a war crime (unless inhumane weapons are used), but wearing "normal" civil clothes while in combat is. I believe they don't wear uniforms, therefore they are quilty of war crimes.

Law of war (and violations against this law are war crimes) generally protects civilians and POW's. Killing soldiers isn't actually a war crime (unless inhumane weapons are used), but wearing "normal" civil clothes while in combat is. I believe they don't wear uniforms, therefore they are quilty of war crimes.
Again, not all are wearing normal civil clothes.
Some are wearing Hamas bandanas for instance.

the reason u dont hear about the second type is that ist rarly hapens c the ppl who sends them (the suicide) figured out that qoute on qoute (translated to english) "its a wast to use explosive on the army since the dont bunch up(i guess... couldnt figured how to translate that.....) while israel( i think there where a swear round about here) civilians do" suicide boomber r crazy brainwashed and they think theyll go to heaven if theyll die during the jihad and get i think it was 60 virgins but i dont realy care..... because there leader wouldnt alow them to look at the world any difrent then they want them to (y ull never c islamic phanatics over the internet.....) and what did the american did to suicide bombers and civilil population in vietnam not that in israel they act anything like this but before acusing israel army in any unhuman action look at u own f' ing back yard

Law of war (and violations against this law are war crimes) generally protects civilians and POW's. Killing soldiers isn't actually a war crime (unless inhumane weapons are used), but wearing "normal" civil clothes while in combat is. I believe they don't wear uniforms, therefore they are quilty of war crimes.

Ok. I just recall from Vietnam, North Vietnamese would send explosive-rigged women to American bases. The solders would assume they were refugees, then get blown up. It was seen as a very cowardly and inhumane way to kill an enemy. Through your definition, it would seem as though they were using inhumane weapons. How would you catogorize those bombers?

Law of war (and violations against this law are war crimes) generally protects civilians and POW's. Killing soldiers isn't actually a war crime (unless inhumane weapons are used), but wearing "normal" civil clothes while in combat is. I believe they don't wear uniforms, therefore they are quilty of war crimes.

When did the sucide bombers sign the treaty?

Again, not all are wearing normal uniforms.
Some are wearing Hamas bandanas for instance.
hmm..
"It is a violation of the laws of war to engage in combat without meeting certain requirements, among them the wearing of a distinctive uniform or other easily identifiable badge and the carrying of weapons openly."
arguable, yes.
They don't even have any official uniform, or do they? Can't expect to wear one then, I suppose.

When did the sucide bombers sign the treaty?
Well the question I tried to answer was, what constitutes a war crime.
Good point though.

Does anyone else think that "laws of war" is a silly concept?

Ok. I just recall from Vietnam, North Vietnamese would send explosive-rigged women to American bases. The solders would assume they were refugees, then get blown up. It was seen as a very cowardly and inhumane way to kill an enemy. Through your definition, it would seem as though they were using inhumane weapons. How would you catogorize those bombers?
They have committed a war crime. Pretending to be civilians when they were not. And I would categorize them as suicide bombers, that's it.

Does anyone else think that "laws of war" is a silly concept?
Very much so, but I'm still happy they exist.

The point is that nobody is helping the palestinians. Suicide bombing is always horrible because there is always at least one man dying. It doesn't matter if he is a war criminal or not, because he won't face justice anyway and at the end of the day many people die. But if there was no suicide bomber, the world wouldn't give a fuck about Palestine and Israel would annex it and drive the palestinians to the sea.

Whether you call them freedom fighters or terrorists doesn't change a thing. The time for blaming and labelling is expired since more than 50 years. Now it does't bring anything productive anymore. It is now time to find a solution for peace and freedom because Palestine deserve freedom and Israel deserve peace.

Very much so, but I'm still happy they exist.

I don't know. I think they give people the illusion that war can be civilized. A sought of smugness about fighing a "humane" war. Let's face it civilians always get killed. Do they care that they weren't "intentionally targeted."

In any event, once things get really serious for one side or the other, they always go out the window.

Only thing is, it's still an illusion. Our armies and our government and whatever may like these 'Laws of War,' but the enemy doesn't have to agree, or follow them. War is generally an inhumane thing. People die. Sometimes, civilians die. Sometimes they have to for a side to win. Taking cities, controlling areas is all well and good, but when you get down to it, war is killing. Some sides do what they need to win, which may include killing civilians. Others may have such laws, to try and keep it humane. Who has the advantage?

I'm not saying I condone killing civilians, or doing anything to win. I don't. But it's war, and to win if it needs to be done, some don't have a problem with it.

To be fair, you do occasionally hear about option 2. But they always seem to be in the vast minority, and certainly don’t receive much attention from the media. Probably because they are not referred to as suicide bombers.

Now whether they are the minority of attacks I don’t know. But you raise a good point, that they should be distinguished from those who are commonly termed suicide bomber.

vast minority? that doesn't make sense!

There are two classes of suicide bombers, and you did not cover these two classes. You bunched them up into one class, as I expected you might:

1) There are the suicide bombers who rush into civilian areas and blow themselves up. This is to cause terror and unrest. I do not approve of their methods, and neither does Islam.

2) There are the suicide bombers who load explosives into their trucks, and rush at an Israeli checkpoint. They end up blowing up an Israeli humvee, a few Israeli soldiers, and rendering a Merkava tank useless. These are freedom fighters. It is a very viable method of warfare. Not the best, but definately the most viable when you consider the state the Palestinian heroes are in.

But then again, you don't hear about the second class in Israel (or America, for that matter), do you?.. You hear about busses and cafes being blown up. Go figure..


In conclusion, the poll is extremely unfair to the heroes of Palestine (#2, in case you are still confused ) and I refeuse to vote until you adjust the choices to distinguish between one and two.

I agree with this view, so I voted 'other'

There are two classes of suicide bombers, and you did not cover these two classes. You bunched them up into one class, as I expected you might:

1) There are the suicide bombers who rush into civilian areas and blow themselves up. This is to cause terror and unrest. I do not approve of their methods, and neither does Islam.

2) There are the suicide bombers who load explosives into their trucks, and rush at an Israeli checkpoint. They end up blowing up an Israeli humvee, a few Israeli soldiers, and rendering a Merkava tank useless. These are freedom fighters. It is a very viable method of warfare. Not the best, but definately the most viable when you consider the state the Palestinian heroes are in.

But then again, you don't hear about the second class in Israel (or America, for that matter), do you?.. You hear about busses and cafes being blown up. Go figure.. :rolleyes:

Do you have any figures on class two? How many times has a class two happened in the past four years? Is it actual media censorship, as you're implying, or are they simply much more RARE, as everyone else here is alleging?


My impression is that the reason the two classes are often conflated is because both methods tend to be used by the various militant groups, and also because they tend to prefer the first over the second (among other reasons, it is easier to recruit- and send, with a chance for success- a single person rather than a person driving a truck).

My personal opinion regarding the OP's question is that one can at least ARGUE that there is some rationale/legitimacy about using suicide bombers against military targets, but the same cannot be said in regards to civilian targets- and furthermore, that it's pretty disengenuous for you to call them "heroes" when they're largely members of the same groups, with the same ideology and the same goals. So what, the few members of Hamas who have engaged in class 2 attacks are heroes, and the rest are douchebags? What does that make Hamas as a whole? What about the fact that these operatives don't usually find out about their targets until they're sent off? What makes them "heroes"? They don't have a choice.

I find your attempt to distinguish "heroes" from "terrorists" particularly problematic and intellectually dishonest. You can theoretically argue that there is a DIFFERENCE between classes 1 and 2, but to argue that class 2 operatives are "heroes" seems quite a stretch.

There are two classes of suicide bombers, and you did not cover these two classes. You bunched them up into one class, as I expected you might:

1) There are the suicide bombers who rush into civilian areas and blow themselves up. This is to cause terror and unrest. I do not approve of their methods, and neither does Islam.

2) There are the suicide bombers who load explosives into their trucks, and rush at an Israeli checkpoint. They end up blowing up an Israeli humvee, a few Israeli soldiers, and rendering a Merkava tank useless. These are freedom fighters. It is a very viable method of warfare. Not the best, but definately the most viable when you consider the state the Palestinian heroes are in.

But then again, you don't hear about the second class in Israel (or America, for that matter), do you?.. You hear about busses and cafes being blown up. Go figure.. :rolleyes:


In conclusion, the poll is extremely unfair to the heroes of Palestine (#2, in case you are still confused :rolleyes: ) and I refeuse to vote until you adjust the choices to distinguish between one and two.

"Don't hear about the second class in Israel"? Why, you think we are that apathetic to our dead soldiers? I agree we have too many, but still, we hear about "the second class" just as well.
"heroes of Palestine". Oh, how heroic it is to bomb yourself in a checkpoint.

Anybody who is willing to blow themselves up in the name of "freedom" is a moron

suicide bombers are crazy. Heroic or not depends on which side of the bomber you are on.

I think the question is more to do with "terrorism"

So, my question would be is there a difference in people's minds between a person strapping a bomb to their body knowing they will kill innocent civilians and some one who fires a gun or pushes a button to a bomb and knows they will kill innocent people?

Is there a difference or is it basically the same thing and simply a question of who can afford the better weapons and who can't?

For the record I do understand why some people feel so desperate to do such things, I however do not approve of it personally.

I've noticed unnamed people trying to defend certain people who i'd say are terrorists. So what do you think about Suicide bombers, are they murderering terrorists or heroic freedom fighters?
Suicide bombers take a good cause too far. As a Jew, I hate to see innocent Israelis killed, but when you look at it from the Palestinians point of view, Israelis are moving in to the few areas that Palestinians can actually live and kicking them out. What are you supposed to do then? I wouldn't blow myself up, but I'd be pretty pissed off.

They are either heroic or criminal, depending on the target: If they target civilians, they are criminals, plain and simple. If they target military, they are no different than Japanese Kamikaze pilots (which did basically the same thing). I mean, the history of EVERY country (from the US Alamo, to the Greek's Battle of Thermopitilae or whatever it is written) is filled of guys that KNEW that they would not survive, but still engaged in battle.. can you call them morons, cowards? I guess not, they just thought that some things are worth dying for..