NationStates Jolt Archive

I wonder, what is the ethical distinction between hiding and shooting someone and hiding and blowing someone up?

There have been a few threads about american and british sharpshooters hiding and killing unsuspecting people.

What makes this different than killing people with a bomb?

Probably cause the difference is that the sucide bombers are blowing themselves up and killing mostly civilians whereas when the snipers kill some-one they are killing an insurgent or at least a suspected insurgent. One is a random attack with no care about who gets hurt while the other is an attack on a threat. Though whether or not that is still something to glorify is questionable

Its quite simple

Roadside car bombs are designed to kill anyone, anywhere. Doesnt matter who. Often the people who set them off will first lure people to the car by offering work.

Sniper rifle attacks are designed to kill one individual. A specific individaul, and him or her only.

Simple: a roadside bomb is designed to kill indiscriminately, snipers kill a single target with little chance for collateral damange. What is more ethical, killing a single person from 1500 yards, or having a fire fight in a public place? Snipers are to infantry what precision munitions are to carpet bombing. The idea is to kill your target while avoiding as much risk as you can for both your soldiers and the civilians who are likely to be nearby.

Sniper rifle attacks are designed to kill one individual. A specific individaul, and him or her only.

Depends on cartridge type and the crowd. A single person in a crowded marketplace and a .50 BMG round will most definitely net you more than one dead person.

I wonder, what is the ethical distinction between hiding and shooting someone and hiding and blowing someone up?

There have been a few threads about american and british sharpshooters hiding and killing unsuspecting people.

What makes this different than killing people with a bomb?

The snipers are taking a few lives to save many lives. The bombers are taking many lives and saving nobody. It is most unfortunate that any lives at all need to be taken, but the sort of person who would willingly destroy himself isn't the sort of person who will heed reason before it is too late.

Depends on cartridge type and the crowd. A single person in a crowded marketplace and a .50 BMG round will most definitely net you more than one dead person.

You'll still end uo with less dead and injured than if a car-bomb goes off in a crowded marketplace.

You'll still end uo with less dead and injured than if a car-bomb goes off in a crowded marketplace.

The Russians more or less said the same thing regarding the handling of the Beslan school siege and the Moscow Opera House crisis.

This is simple people.

1. Sniper aims, shoots person he is aiming at.
2. Roadside bomb blows up, killing whoever is nearby. Be it enemy soldiers, non-aligned civilians, little kids, busload of nuns....

We're not talking quantum physics here.

I wonder, what is the ethical distinction between hiding and shooting someone and hiding and blowing someone up?

There have been a few threads about american and british sharpshooters hiding and killing unsuspecting people.

What makes this different than killing people with a bomb?

Snipers are deliberately choosing armed targets (or targets that are in essence, soldiers). They also kill without wounding - it's a quick, clean death.

Most victims of suicide bombers are unarmed innocent civilians, and for every person killed by a suicide bomber, there are usually two or more who are horribly injured or maimed.

The ethical difference lies in the restricted vs. unrestricted warfare concept.

I wonder, what is the ethical distinction between hiding and shooting someone and hiding and blowing someone up?

There have been a few threads about american and british sharpshooters hiding and killing unsuspecting people.

What makes this different than killing people with a bomb?

A sniper can take out one person with one shot, a bomb kills everyone in the area including civilians.

Probably cause the difference is that the sucide bombers are blowing themselves up and killing mostly civilians whereas when the snipers kill some-one they are killing an insurgent or at least a suspected insurgent. One is a random attack with no care about who gets hurt while the other is an attack on a threat. Though whether or not that is still something to glorify is questionable
a) roadside bombs are not necessarily suicide attacks. "what is the ethical distinction between hiding and shooting someone and hiding and blowing someone up?"
b) there are also snipers among the enemy. Like Juba http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1542823,00.html

a) roadside bombs are not necessarily suicide attacks. "what is the ethical distinction between hiding and shooting someone and hiding and blowing someone up?"
b) there are also snipers among the enemy. Like Juba http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1542823,00.html
Was just going to make that point.Most raodside bombs are there to target military personal and are NOT the same as a sucide bomber in a crowded market.

Killing someone and ethics? I've always found that religion causes this problem in its belief that there is an after life, combined with the patriotism that allows people to think that whoever there killing deserves what's coming to them in the next life. Kill a terrorist, well the bastard's in hell now. Kill a civilian - oops, but the poor guy's in heaven now.

If you wanted to ethically you could all pick up your gladius and your scutum and march in formation towards the enemy. Anyway, who came up with the idea that allowing your enemy time to prepare before you kill him - so that you, at least, lose a few of your own soldiers - was honourable (ethical)?

If you really wanted to be ethical then you'd load a clip of tranquiliser darts into your rifle and call for air support to blanket the area with sleeping gas [sic].

a) roadside bombs are not necessarily suicide attacks. "what is the ethical distinction between hiding and shooting someone and hiding and blowing someone up?

Hmmm, that is right. I guess there is little difference between whether it was a roadside bomb that blows up next to a US army patrol or if it was a missile does it?

At least from an ethical standpoint.

Hmmm, that is right. I guess there is little difference between whether it was a roadside bomb that blows up next to a US army patrol or if it was a missile does it?

At least from an ethical standpoint.
True.Although one comes to mind that was completly over the top in just wrongness.Warrenpoint northern ireland in 1979.Using one bomb to take out a roadside patrol may have been justified but using a second afterwards to knock out the rescue unit was wrong in the extreme.

Hmmm, that is right. I guess there is little difference between whether it was a roadside bomb that blows up next to a US army patrol or if it was a missile does it?

At least from an ethical standpoint.
Yes. So what's the difference between killing and probably wounding many by a bomb or killing one (or many) by a bullet. I don't know really.

Yes. So what's the difference between killing and probably wounding many by a bomb or killing one (or many) by a bullet. I don't know really.

Translated:

I lack reading comprehension. Please school me.

You realize that I did not mention a bullet in this case? I mentioned specifically a missile, or perhaps you would prefer an artillery shell. Both of them happen to be used more liberally by the United States army than the Iraqi insurgency. Given that the insurgency lacks such equipment, they use roadside bombs instead to ambush patrols and such.

How is that any different from the US shelling an area?

Please come back when you learn to read properly.

To clarify, I cleary said 'roadside bombs' and not 'suicide bombs' and thought it would be understood that roadside bombs are mostly used to attack military vehicles.

To restate the question:

What is the ethical difference between hiding and using a bomb to blow up an army truck as it passes by and using a rifle to shoot a soldier?


This sort of attack is not indiscriminate.

What is the ethical difference between hiding and using a bomb to blow up an army truck as it passes by and using a rifle to shoot a soldier?
There isn't.

Both are..."legitimate" (I hate that word sometimes) means of fighting a war. The only difference is that, as you have seen, the very idea of a bomb blowing up a US Soldier seems to immediately call up "Terrorism!!!" in people's heads.

True.Although one comes to mind that was completly over the top in just wrongness.Warrenpoint northern ireland in 1979.Using one bomb to take out a roadside patrol may have been justified but using a second afterwards to knock out the rescue unit was wrong in the extreme.

Actually the second bomb was located near the Gatehouse it was thought that the unit would use to set up command after the initial bomb, and was detonated when a sufficient number entered the kill zone. It wasn't actually used to target any civillian ambulance or rescue service, hence the fact that only soldiers were killed by the bomb.

Again, a roadside bomb is indiscriminate. You leave it where you think the enemy is going to go through and get out. Same as a landmine. You can't stop it if a school bus or other civilian transport happens to come by.

Snipers shoot specific targets in order to avoid hitting the surrounding people. And no, no one in his right mind would fire a .50 caliber anti-vehicle rifle into a crowd he is trying to protect.

I wonder, what is the ethical distinction between hiding and shooting someone and hiding and blowing someone up?

There have been a few threads about american and british sharpshooters hiding and killing unsuspecting people.

What makes this different than killing people with a bomb?

ummmm,
a sniper kills an individual combatant or the enemy if you prefer.

a bomber indiscrimminately kills innocent people,even if they are targeting soldiers they always kill some poor smuck walking by or siting having tea at their kitchen table.

pretty big difference if you ask me.

if there wasn't,the us would not need too many boots on the ground cause we could just bomb the shit outta anywere we suspected enemies were.rather then the less civilian casualty way of sniping!:sniper:

a bomber indiscrimminately kills innocent people,even if they are targeting soldiers they always kill some poor smuck walking by or siting having tea at their kitchen table.

Hardly.

The Russians more or less said the same thing regarding the handling of the Beslan school siege and the Moscow Opera House crisis.
While both of those operations were monumental fuck ups, I think they do have a point. 40 well armed and motivated terrorists with unacceptable demands who rig the whole theatre to blow with huge amounts of explosives and you only lose a sixth of the hostages? That doesn't seem bad odds to me when you consider the potential alternatives.

ummmm,
a sniper kills an individual combatant or the enemy if you prefer.

a bomber indiscrimminately kills innocent people,even if they are targeting soldiers they always kill some poor smuck walking by or siting having tea at their kitchen table.

pretty big difference if you ask me.

if there wasn't,the us would not need too many boots on the ground cause we could just bomb the shit outta anywere we suspected enemies were.rather then the less civilian casualty way of sniping!:sniper:


Roadside bombs are often detonated by remote control, by someone hiding and watching for military vehicles to come by.

Also, how many people walk, drink tea, or have kitchens on the side of highways?

They are not indiscriminate, they are targeted specicially and deliberately at military vehicles with the intention of killing combatants.

I wonder, what is the ethical distinction between hiding and shooting someone and hiding and blowing someone up?

There have been a few threads about american and british sharpshooters hiding and killing unsuspecting people.

What makes this different than killing people with a bomb?snipers (and the terrorist use snipers also, so it's not just a military thang) try to be percise. they only want their targets dead, and dead quickly. Bombs don't make that distiction.

in a busy street corner, a sniper can pick off one person. leaving the rest of them truamatized but otherwise ok.

a bomb on the same corner may hit their target, but alot of innocents will also be hurt and killed.

(oh and no your first post does not mention ROADSIDE BOMBS NOT SUICIDE BOMBERS.)

Roadside bombs are often detonated by remote control, by someone hiding and watching for military vehicles to come by.

Also, how many people walk, drink tea, or have kitchens on the side of highways?bombs blast area is porportionate to the size of the explosion. so a home/business a couple of feet or even yards away will also be affected. and some of those bombs are not just on Highways but on street corners and busy marketplaces.

They are not indiscriminate, they are targeted specicially and deliberately at military vehicles with the intention of killing combatants. so you agree then that the people who set the bombs detonated at the Iraqi school, or at the soldiers giving candy to children were also targeting the kids... makes sense since they wanted to create terror...

Hardly.
proof?

a) roadside bombs are not necessarily suicide attacks. "what is the ethical distinction between hiding and shooting someone and hiding and blowing someone up?"
b) there are also snipers among the enemy. Like Juba http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1542823,00.html
for point a) most suicide bombers are instructed on what to do. which means someone is still hiding and blowing people up. the fact that the bomb is strapped to a person and not in a letter mailed to someone, or in a bag or in a car only makes it more horrifying.

proof?
Proof that there were bombs that only killed military personnel?

Proof that there were bombs that only killed military personnel?the word he used was Hardly. for the comment about bombs always killing some innocent person. so yes proof that more military only bombing occure more often than those that have even one civlilian injury/casualty.

I believe bombings where innocents do get killed or hurt happen more frequently than not.

and remember, when there isn't any war going on, bases do have non-military personnel as employees also.

Roadside bombs are often detonated by remote control, by someone hiding and watching for military vehicles to come by.

They are not indiscriminate, they are targeted specicially and deliberately at military vehicles with the intention of killing combatants. (my emphasis)

So, part of the time, someone is hiding nearby, waiting to lure people to their deaths. Soldiers don't just jump out of a tank, and say "what's this thing lying by the road?" They are lured out, by a fake body in an American uniform lying by the road, or some other means of trickery. And, of course, they may be medics or whatever, but the point is, they are AMERICANS (or Brits), so they are targets. And these people setting/detonating the bombs, they are not uniformed soldiers- they are not a militia- they are either foreign terrorists, or gourilla (sp?) insurectionists. Who can hide in the next village, no one the wiser. On the other hand, American/UK snipers (who are wearing uniforms) target ARMED opponents, or known terrorist leaders- not just anyone who happens to stroll by looking arab.

There is a difference here, and it is a big one. Maybe someone more eloquent that I (like Bottle or Can not think of a name) will venture in this thread and explain the Geneva Convention and the rules of warfare to you.

On the times that they are NOT detonated by remote, RSB's are the equivalent of a mine, which kills whomever comes into contact with it. Which I think everyone agrees is bad.

Well I think it would depend.

Sniper - Uses a gun usually needs a line of sight, is subject to return fire if spoted, artillery return, airstrikes etc.. etc.. , potentially can ' pick their targets i.e assassination. or even if lucky more then 1 person.. - but maybe using rifle (only a bullet, may not be enough for modern armor unless head shot)

Mines, Bombs etc.. if self detonating - anyone can be hit, needs to be cleaned up after hostilities.. can be very deadly and no one needs to 'alive' to do it.

However some can be wired etc. however far more unlikely. Booby traps are good for 'defensive natives' as they know their areas and could have defence plans premapped out. Booby traps if coordinated can be detected if you 'watch' an area. But not good for migrating individuals.

An invading army will be able to 'map out' all the good sniping locations and mark them.

So what is the difference. Snipping is only good for 'suprise' and unsuspected resistance i.e assasination or suprise coordinated instances.. that is it isn't effective anymore if the military you are against has long range weapons or air support. (boom)

sniping is intent on being ' hit an run' although in a non air/artiliary urban combat scenario you can be hunkered in for a while.. mordern warfare no such luck sniping is from the pre 80's 20 years later ain't gonna cut it unless air support is cut out. It is still good for suprise but not good for an ongoing tactic.

Road side bombs on the other hand SLOW DOWN and cause stress for 'non native' patrols. it is a good resistance weapons.. mines are essentially defensive weapons. however they could be used to torture a local population but generally occupiers attempt to remove offensive capabiity control economic systems then force the public to submit to them.

Defenders need to wear down the occupiers, slow down their operations and widdle down the patrols making them ineffective and seeking to withdraw to defended positions only. This gives more capacity to the gurreilla forces who with time can start launching attacks on the defended positions and control partisan ground.

Roads then become very dangerous which makes resupply and leave etc.. an issue, also the public needs to rely on the resistance for information about where the bombs are.. other wise they can be killled too for not knowing and collaborating with the resitance.

Bombs also can go through armor... and .50 cal machine guns can be heavy and complex to snipe with. I could say more but that is a breif idea.

oh I forgot to add .


WAR ISN"T ETHICAL IT IS MURDER!!!!

WAKE UP!!!

ANYONE SUPPORTING THE SOLDIER IS SUPPORTING MURDER WETHER THIS IS TAXES OR MAKING THEIR GUNS OR HEALING THEIR WOUNDS IT IS SUPPORT OF MURDER.

MURDER IS NOT ETHICAL IT IS THE MOST SELFISH ACT ON THE FACE OF THE PLANET!

WAKE UP!

oh I forgot to add .
[SNIPPED WITH REALLY BIG SHEARS] nevermind that at some point in History, your freedoms were bought through the bartering system called war...

and I am sorry to say that this post totally ruined the previous one which was, in my opionion, quite good.

oh I forgot to add .

WAR ISN"T ETHICAL IT IS MURDER!!!!

WAKE UP!!!

ANYONE SUPPORTING THE SOLDIER IS SUPPORTING MURDER WETHER THIS IS TAXES OR MAKING THEIR GUNS OR HEALING THEIR WOUNDS IT IS SUPPORT OF MURDER.

MURDER IS NOT ETHICAL IT IS THE MOST SELFISH ACT ON THE FACE OF THE PLANET!

WAKE UP!

If I make war on the killer of my wife after he's come into my house to kill and
rob us, as he is about to kill me, am I acting unethically?

Make no mistake. War is simply a tool, just as a sharp knife is a tool.

Is a sharp knife an "unethical" thing? Is it an "evil" thing?

It can be used for good or evil.

(( I shall reserve my comments as to the maturity of the quoted poster, as
not doing so would merely generate an immature and irrational response. ))

(( Then again,.. perhaps this, or that, is sarcasm..? ))


-Iakeo

There are several ethical ways of approaching it.

Lets say the insurgent is a utilitarian. Then he believes it will create more happines for humans if the americans were forced out of Iraq.

Killing 4 americans are better than killing 1.

So one could argue that the bomb is the better because it is more efficient. But that is not regarding collateral damage :)

There are several ethical ways of approaching it.

Lets say the insurgent is a utilitarian. Then he believes it will create more happines for humans if the americans were forced out of Iraq.

Killing 4 americans are better than killing 1.

So one could argue that the bomb is the better because it is more efficient. But that is not regarding collateral damage :)

Are you trying to say that Iraqi insurgents are reading J.S. Mills? Cause I kinda doubt that the principle of utility comes into the extremist muslim way of thought. Democracy, freedom...these things are regarded as positives by Mills, so a Theocracy doesn't exactly fit into line with Utilitarianism.

Not to beat a dead horse, but as has been said before, a sniper is targeting a single enemy combatant. When that terrorists sets off the roadside bomb, he doesn't care if there's civilians within the blast radius; in fact he'll probably count on it just to rile up and terrorize the local populace.

""American/UK snipers (who are wearing uniforms) target ARMED opponents, or known terrorist leaders- not just anyone who happens to stroll by looking arab. "



"
There is a difference here, and it is a big one. Maybe someone more eloquent that I (like Bottle or Can not think of a name) will venture in this thread and explain the Geneva Convention and the rules of warfare to you. "

Ok two things.

1. Here the story about the upset amercians when the aussies refused not to wear their uniforms like the US troops... US soildiers / SPecial forces etc.. if the stories are true.. don't wear their uniforms..

2. The US doesn't follow international law. Torture etc.. isn't exactly 'accepted' but the rules of war end up being do what you need to do, with the weapons that are most effective. It is that simple. The US and UK actively violate countries sovreignty illegaly, it is a sham a hoax a general shroud, rules of war don't exist, just good sense to cooperate.

GET THIS a supplied military that is invading / occupying another country will have access to equipment and supplies (for the most part at adequette levels) a defending force will most likely have its heavy industry removed from them or destroyed. If there is no counter strike it forces the defending forces to partisan tactics, to the point of being considered 'domestic' where the 'police' can take care of them. That is crime all crime is war. it is going against a policy of an occupier. Only the sovereign are free, unless you agree to all the cultural values of the force imposing their rules.

Oppressing anyone against their will isn't ethical. It is just cultural supremisists saying what is right. It is the whole concept of the state. At the heart of every state is the faith, as an army of one others may claim it to be anarchy but ultiately either you are a slave or free. All the propaganda and bs is just that trying to paint colours on the 'cause' of freedom or for the fatherland or motherland, war is a war for yourself in a society that beleives that we should concede to one another. That is the opposite of freedom , freedom is surrender to no one for everyone. But when did we become retarded as to start attacking one another?

It is nothing more then civil war and why?

Ethics is do for others what they consider good.
Morality is do what is good for everyone in what you do.

When ethics is twisted to destruction and execution is that not selling out freedom?

You realize that I did not mention a bullet in this case? I mentioned specifically a missile, or perhaps you would prefer an artillery shell. Both of them happen to be used more liberally by the United States army than the Iraqi insurgency. Given that the insurgency lacks such equipment, they use roadside bombs instead to ambush patrols and such.

How is that any different from the US shelling an area?

Please come back when you learn to read properly.

an RPG is a missile and a mortar is an artillery shell. Last time i checked the Insurgency is using them quite a bit themselves.

snipers (and the terrorist use snipers also, so it's not just a military thang) try to be percise. they only want their targets dead, and dead quickly. Bombs don't make that distiction.

in a busy street corner, a sniper can pick off one person. leaving the rest of them truamatized but otherwise ok.

a bomb on the same corner may hit their target, but alot of innocents will also be hurt and killed.

(oh and no your first post does not mention ROADSIDE BOMBS NOT SUICIDE BOMBERS.)

bombs blast area is porportionate to the size of the explosion. so a home/business a couple of feet or even yards away will also be affected. and some of those bombs are not just on Highways but on street corners and busy marketplaces.

so you agree then that the people who set the bombs detonated at the Iraqi school, or at the soldiers giving candy to children were also targeting the kids... makes sense since they wanted to create terror...

At least one person responded along the lines of "snipers dont kill themselves like suicide bombers do, thats the difference."

Clearly, I'm referring to roadside bombs which specifically target military vehicles without hurting non combatants, like I said.

Not other kinds of bombs.

To clarify the same thing again, so that comments arent made about things which arent relevant to the topic, like bombing schools, suicide bombings, bombing street corners, &c &c.

Lets say there is a stretch of open highway between two towns, half way through the road, someone plants a roadside bomb and then hides on a nearby hill with the detonator, waiting for an unwitting military convoy to come by.

On another, similar road, a sniper is hiding on a hill waiting for an unwitting enemy soldier to come by so he can shoot him.

By some coincidence, the sniper finds his target and a military convoy goes by at the same time, and at the same instant, the sniper shoots the enemy and the roadside bomb is detonated.

In each case, only enemy soldiers are killed.

Is there any difference, in terms of ethics, between what the sniper did and what the roadside bomber did?

At least one person responded along the lines of "snipers dont kill themselves like suicide bombers do, thats the difference."

Clearly, I'm referring to roadside bombs which specifically target military vehicles without hurting non combatants, like I said.

Not other kinds of bombs.keep narrowing the point down :rolleyes: Soon you'll be saying "I'm talking about bombings that only military personnel that were carrying out missions of a purely military only objective, in a cleared, no-innocents-around-in-a-5-miles-radius-so-if-there-are-innocents-there-they-were-obviously-not-innocent-location were killed." :p

(Edit: Honestly... I really did type this out before you posted the above one... honestly and truly...)

The point is that bombs are too iffy. the military transport that is blown up may be taking medicine and food to a starving village. it could be some nice military man giving a child who lives near the base a ride home from school.

you cannot say that "Clearly, I'm referring to roadside bombs which specifically target military vehicles without hurting non combatants, like I said." for the person setting off the bomb really doesn't care. if they did, they wouldn't use roadside bombs, but planted remote mines. they would be more precise, hitting only the military vehicle, with less chance of innocents being hurt... note less not "none"

the real telling tale is the statistics. how many roadside bombs that fit your "specifically target military vehicles without hurting non combatants" vrs those that had innocent victims? how many for sniping that was carried out by the US and British military? and remember, sniping is different than a gun battle.

To clarify the same thing again, so that comments arent made about things which arent relevant to the topic, like bombing schools, suicide bombings, bombing street corners, &c &c.

Lets say there is a stretch of open highway between two towns, half way through the road, someone plants a roadside bomb and then hides on a nearby hill with the detonator, waiting for an unwitting military convoy to come by.

On another, similar road, a sniper is hiding on a hill waiting for an unwitting enemy soldier to come by so he can shoot him.

By some coincidence, the sniper finds his target and a military convoy goes by at the same time, and at the same instant, the sniper shoots the enemy and the roadside bomb is detonated.

In each case, only enemy soldiers are killed.

Is there any difference, in terms of ethics, between what the sniper did and what the roadside bomber did? no. there is still the one difference. that it was because of LUCK that the roadside bomb only killed, and presuming, injured enemy soldiers. if you state that the road was blockaged so that no civilians were on it, then I call that stupidiy of the commanding officer for informing the enemy the route of the convoy.

Lets say there is a stretch of open highway between two towns, half way through the road, someone plants a roadside bomb and then hides on a nearby hill with the detonator, waiting for an unwitting military convoy to come by.

You are suffering from a widely accepted misconception that the "roadside bombs" in Iraq are detonated on the highway out in the desert. This is the case less than half the time. Most of the time they are along major travel routes on the outskirts of cities. Will post a link when I find it.

edit: a picture is worth 1000 words right? Check out pic #13, IN the city.

http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/feed/archives/001847.html

The reports always say "in NW Baghdad", or "outside Mosul", because the roadside bombs take place IN POPULATED AREAS, inside city limits or in what we would call "small towns", which cluster around the major roads.

You are suffering from a widely accepted misconception that the "roadside bombs" in Iraq are detonated on the highway out in the desert. This is the case less than half the time. Most of the time they are along major travel routes on the outskirts of cities. Will post a link when I find it.

edit: a picture is worth 1000 words right? Check out pic #13, IN the city.

http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/feed/archives/001847.html

The reports always say "in NW Baghdad", or "outside Mosul", because the roadside bombs take place IN POPULATED AREAS, inside city limits or in what we would call "small towns", which cluster around the major roads.


The example is specific because the idea is to isolate the variable of "bomb" vs "sniper."

Again, to repeat what was already clear: the idea is to determine whether under ideal conditions the use of a hidden bomb is more unethical or underhanded than the use of a hidden rifle.

The example is specific because the idea is to isolate the variable of "bomb" vs "sniper."

Again, to repeat what was already clear: the idea is to determine whether under ideal conditions the use of a hidden bomb is more unethical or underhanded than the use of a hidden rifle.
it's unethical for the bomb because the idea behind the bomb is for maximum damage and maximum effects... civilian casualties are acceptable collateral damage. Snipers are for surgical strikes where civilian casualties are not acceptable.

The example is specific because the idea is to isolate the variable of "bomb" vs "sniper."

Again, to repeat what was already clear: the idea is to determine whether under ideal conditions the use of a hidden bomb is more unethical or underhanded than the use of a hidden rifle.

The problem is, the ideal conditions for the bomb is to have as many civilians in the blast radius, causing maximum damage and loss of life, since the terrorists are trying to, you know, terrorize the population.

I can't believe you people really think that all roadside bombs=indiscriminate cowardly attacks and coalition snipers=really cool people.


I quote New Granada:

Lets say there is a stretch of open highway between two towns, half way through the road, someone plants a roadside bomb and then hides on a nearby hill with the detonator, waiting for an unwitting military convoy to come by.

On another, similar road, a sniper is hiding on a hill waiting for an unwitting enemy soldier to come by so he can shoot him.

By some coincidence, the sniper finds his target and a military convoy goes by at the same time, and at the same instant, the sniper shoots the enemy and the roadside bomb is detonated.

In each case, only enemy soldiers are killed.

Is there any difference, in terms of ethics, between what the sniper did and what the roadside bomber did? Answer: there is none.

Oh, and to get you people really stoked up...

The insurgent grapevine celebrates an incident last June when a four-strong marine scout sniper team was killed in Ramadi, all with shots to the head.

Wow, skills or what???

The problem is, the ideal conditions for the bomb is to have as many civilians in the blast radius, causing maximum damage and loss of life, since the terrorists are trying to, you know, terrorize the population.
Well, you need to distinguish between insurgents, resistance organisations and terrorists.

I'd personally say:
Insurgents are men and youths who take up weapons like rifles and RPGs and fight US Forces, as happened in Sadr City, in Faluja and so on.

Resistance Organisations are groups which use various weapons and tactics to attack members of the occupation forces. They might use RPGs or shaped charge IEDs to attack Convois.

Terrorists are those that blow up Shi'ite religious ceremonies, markets and so on.

Of course the lines are blurred sometimes, but then I guess you have to decide on a case by case basis.
Al-Zarqawi's AQ-Branch might fall into the second and third category, such that they have "legitimate" and "illegitimate" operations.

Again, to repeat what was already clear:

No need to get testy, just because we refuse to accept your razor thin definition of what a "roadside bomb" is. You want to isolate the action of planting a bomb or firing a sniper rifle to a set of specific circumstances which are highly improbable in an armed conflict- just so you can claim that FUCKING TERRORISTS are no worse or maybe better than us horrible Americans.

1.Bombs are not set in "ideal" conditions.

2.Americans do not shoot people for the hell of it. (despite whatever propoganda you have been brainwashed by says)

3. You are making an invisible gardener argument. If you don't know what that is, take a philosophy of religion class, or read Antony Flew.

The problem is, the ideal conditions for the bomb is to have as many civilians in the blast radius, causing maximum damage and loss of life, since the terrorists are trying to, you know, terrorize the population.


Unless, of course, you know, its just someone trying to kill soldiers, like the example I gave.

No need to get testy, just because we refuse to accept your razor thin definition of what a "roadside bomb" is. You want to isolate the action of planting a bomb or firing a sniper rifle to a set of specific circumstances which are highly improbable in an armed conflict- just so you can claim that FUCKING TERRORISTS are no worse or maybe better than us horrible Americans.




No need to get testy, I've made no claims at all about terrorists or terrorism.

The only thing i have any interest at all in generalizing is whether or not there is an intrinsic ethical difference between killing unwitting combatants with a bomb and killing them with a sniper rifle.

Why did that have to be repeated again allthecoolnamesaretaken?

- just so you can claim that FUCKING TERRORISTS are no worse or maybe better than us horrible Americans.
Again...not everyone who fights the Americans in Iraq is a terrorist. Don't be too quick to judge them all.

Terrorism is a matter of methods and goals, not whether your enemy happens to be American.
Even blowing up one American in a huge crowd of civilians would not strictly speaking be terrorism because the goal is not to terrorise anyone, but to kill that one American. If you disagree, I cannot see how you can justify collateral damage caused by Coalition Forces.

Depends on cartridge type and the crowd. A single person in a crowded marketplace and a .50 BMG round will most definitely net you more than one dead person.

I'm sure the sniper in question, with tons of training under his/her belt, would not fire that shot unless it resulted only in their intended kill only.

Why did that have to be repeated again allthecoolnamesaretaken?

Because, for the last time, things are not that damn simple.

You can't ask if A is better, worse, or the same as B without discussing the possible applications and ramifications of applying policy A and B.

Maybe you can in math class, but ethics is not defined in ones and zeros.

If the possibility of collateral damage did not exist, if poorly trained insurgents could be trusted to be precise with explosives, if you could guarantee that only active combatants would be harmed, if you were on Pluto so that no other human was within 10 Astronomical units of you, if this was a legit war instead of murderous brainwashed extremists responding to anti-west propoganda, if if if if if...

like I said, invisible gardener argument.

I am SO out of this thread.

No need to get testy, I've made no claims at all about terrorists or terrorism.

The only thing i have any interest at all in generalizing is whether or not there is an intrinsic ethical difference between killing unwitting combatants with a bomb and killing them with a sniper rifle.

Why did that have to be repeated again allthecoolnamesaretaken?

With a sniper rifle, the chance of any collateral damage, whether it be person or property, is practically nil. With a roadside bomb, there is a very good chance of that.

With a sniper rifle, the chance of any collateral damage, whether it be person or property, is practically nil. With a roadside bomb, there is a very good chance of that.


Allthecoolnames: Lets say that the only thing I have in mind is the french resistance bombing german convoys in ww2 and trying especially hard not to kill their countrymen.

lt_cody: the same could be said of any bomb, and bombs are very widespread in war.
What's under consideration is the question of whether or not it is more cowardly, underhanded, or unethical to use a hidden bomb instead of a hidden rifle, whether, in situations where only combatants are injured, specifically, one can be said to be more or less unethical, underhanded, &c.

lt_cody: the same could be said of any bomb, and bombs are very widespread in war.
And? You're asking which is more ethical; it would be great if we could sneak a Green Beret or SAS sniper into a hostil environment and take out targets of high importance, but most times practicality dictates we use the 500lbs bomb instead.

What's under consideration is the question of whether or not it is more cowardly, underhanded, or unethical to use a hidden bomb instead of a hidden rifle, whether, in situations where only combatants are injured, specifically, one can be said to be more or less unethical, underhanded, &c.
If that's the case, the sniper is actually looking at his target and more in danger of being discovered and captured/killed. The person with the hidden bomb could be several blocks away, waiting for someone to give him the signal to detonate and already be running away by the time his target is calling in for backup and looking to the wounded. I would call the hidden bomb more cowardly then.

Again, a roadside bomb is indiscriminate. You leave it where you think the enemy is going to go through and get out. Same as a landmine. You can't stop it if a school bus or other civilian transport happens to come by.There is dozens of posts like this one... indiscriminate this...blah-blah-bla indiscriminate that..blah-blah-bla


we have Newspapers in every town.. we have 24hour News channels.. these News channels have "informed" us about the Iraq war like for at least 1000 hours!!

Yet the average US resident does not have a clue how a IED works.. don't have a clue how the Iraqis are killing our soldiers...

US media= disinformation.

They are lured out, by a fake body in an American uniform lying by the road, or some other means of trickery. And, of course, they may be medics or whatever, but the point is, they are AMERICANS (or Brits), so they are targets.

Deception and trickery have long been a part of war. False information, hiding of troops, etc, etc. All of them typically were for one purpose. Getting people to look and go the other way so you can catch them with their pants down. Dumping a dead body in uniform to trick enemy forces into doing something else is hardly new. The US (maybe the British, I'm not sure), used the same thing to get Germany to look the other way prior to the D-Day landings.

How's that any differnt than using a dead body to get people looking the wrong way so you can kill them?

War isn't something where people got to two sides of a field and whacked away at each other in the open.


And these people setting/detonating the bombs, they are not uniformed soldiers- they are not a militia- they are either foreign terrorists, or gourilla (sp?) insurectionists. Who can hide in the next village, no one the wiser.

Cruise missiles and remote launched hellfires via Predator drones are hardly declarations of identity of the launcher. How is it any different from a roadside bomb other than the fact that you might get a moments notice before it slams into your car/tank?


On the times that they are NOT detonated by remote, RSB's are the equivalent of a mine, which kills whomever comes into contact with it. Which I think everyone agrees is bad.

Not according to the US. Cluster munitions and landmines still constitute a big part of its arsenal I believe.

an RPG is a missile and a mortar is an artillery shell. Last time i checked the Insurgency is using them quite a bit themselves.

Same difference. The insurgency uses what it has, the United States army uses what it has. Both produce collateral damage in most cases when they use the explosive solution.

You realize that I did not mention a bullet in this case? I mentioned specifically a missile, or perhaps you would prefer an artillery shell. Both of them happen to be used more liberally by the United States army than the Iraqi insurgency. Given that the insurgency lacks such equipment, they use roadside bombs instead to ambush patrols and such.

How is that any different from the US shelling an area?

Please come back when you learn to read properly.
I'm glad that you're so worried about my education. Anyway, you completely misunderstood my post. I just made another, quite similar question to the original one. (and answered it) Nothing else.

I wonder, what is the ethical distinction between hiding and shooting someone and hiding and blowing someone up?

There have been a few threads about american and british sharpshooters hiding and killing unsuspecting people.

What makes this different than killing people with a bomb?
I do not see a moral distinction between shooting someone attempting to blow up military targets and someone blowing up military targets. Of course, I support the snipers because I am a British Democrat and not an Iraqi Baathist. On the other hand, there is a moral distinction between sniping an attempted suicide bomber and blowing up civilian targets, kidnapping civilian contractors and generally attacking non-military targets. That is the difference between "resistance" and "terrorism" and most of the Iraqi insurgents are firmly on the "terrorist" side of the equation.

Same difference. The insurgency uses what it has, the United States army uses what it has. Both produce collateral damage in most cases when they use the explosive solution.


Yes but a crudely aimed mortar fired indiscriminately or a precision artillery Shell.


Or a Laser Guided missile or an unguided rocket with a sometimes unpredictable flightpath, especially when using homemade munitions.


Now what is going to cause more collateral damage?

I wonder, what is the ethical distinction between hiding and shooting someone and hiding and blowing someone up?

There have been a few threads about american and british sharpshooters hiding and killing unsuspecting people.

What makes this different than killing people with a bomb?
Roadside bombs are indiscriminate ... they kill whomever happens to be there when they go off. Snipers are very, very specific and almost always hit exactly what they aim at.

(my emphasis)

So, part of the time, someone is hiding nearby, waiting to lure people to their deaths. Soldiers don't just jump out of a tank, and say "what's this thing lying by the road?" They are lured out, by a fake body in an American uniform lying by the road, or some other means of trickery.


Usually they aren't "lured" out. They just set them off as the convoys/patrol goes by. Where did you get that idea?

(On the other hand, American/UK snipers (who are wearing uniforms) target ARMED opponents, or known terrorist leaders- not just anyone who happens to stroll by looking arab.

What about those SAS soldiers arrested in a car full of weapons dressed as Arabs? On their way to a fancy dress party? Or in the footage of that fight at Mazar-e-Sharif in Afghanistan, where both Brit and Yank soldiers are seen ex-uniform.....another timely fancy dress party?

I think I have a way to spin this:
A sniper commits an act that kills.

Someone planting a bomb creates a condition that kills.

While sniping may be more efficient in removing enemy combatants, it doesn't morally allow any room for error. It would be difficult to defend "accidentally" sniping someone. People getting blown up with a bomb, well, that's different. The manufacturer of the bomb can distance themself from it by saying "well, they shouldn't have been there in the first place" , "it was God's (Allah's) will that they die this day", "how was I supposed to know they were going to be there when the bomb went off?" or some other such justification that leads to "I didn't kill them. The bomb did."

The broader ethical context of this could be "Which is more monsterous? Deliberately killing people or not caring who you kill?" This could extend to .50 BMG ammunition manufacturers being considered as bombers or corporations that turn a blind eye to toxic waste production.

One thing that has always irked me is when someone does something horrible to another person and tries to mitigate retaliation by saying "It's nothing personal." They are correct. It's impersonal and that, IMO, is what makes it monsterous.

The snipers are taking a few lives to save many lives. The bombers are taking many lives and saving nobody.

Well that depends, if you would place a car bomb at a meeting where a lot of generals gather, that would save a lot of lives

Beats me if its ethical, but god i love Iraquis for the IED! They just simply eliminated the vast US superiority in numbers, training and material.

Just (military) genius o.o

Hell, Invade my country, and I'd use them!

Beats me if its ethical, but god i love Iraquis for the IED! They just simply eliminated the vast US superiority in numbers, training and material.

Just (military) genius o.o

Hell, Invade my country, and I'd use them!

Actually the prize for ingenuity in that department goes to the Vietnamese, for using American tins, discarded shell casings, and unexploded bombs as a source of material for improvised booby traps of all shapes and sizes - a tribute to the power of the human will.

Beats me if its ethical, but god i love Iraquis for the IED! They just simply eliminated the vast US superiority in numbers, training and material.
Well hardly. :rolleyes:

Yes but a crudely aimed mortar fired indiscriminately or a precision artillery Shell.

A predator fired hellfire missile has no less of an explosive charge or blast radius than a crude 70s era 85mm mortar shell. It doesn't matter whether you hit your target or not. If it's inside a village or a busy market, you'll produce just as many casualties that aren't even related to your target.

And might I remind you that as evidenced by a British officer's interview with US ground commanders proves, there is no such thing as overkill since I believe the words for shelling of an area to be considered "light projection of military force"

Roadside bombs, crude rockets, sophisticated missiles, laser guided munitions, they all produce more than one casualty in crowded areas, and you damn well know that they aren't used by either side in the middle of nowhere.

Is there any difference, in terms of ethics, between what the sniper did and what the roadside bomber did?

To answer your specific question: No.

a) roadside bombs are not necessarily suicide attacks. "what is the ethical distinction between hiding and shooting someone and hiding and blowing someone up?"
b) there are also snipers among the enemy. Like Juba http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1542823,00.html
My appologies. You are right and i was generalising it at the time. However the point still stands i think,when you blow up a bomb, it kills indiscrimatly while a sniper onli kills the enemy regardless of what side he or she is on.

And? You're asking which is more ethical; it would be great if we could sneak a Green Beret or SAS sniper into a hostil environment and take out targets of high importance, but most times practicality dictates we use the 500lbs bomb instead.


If that's the case, the sniper is actually looking at his target and more in danger of being discovered and captured/killed. The person with the hidden bomb could be several blocks away, waiting for someone to give him the signal to detonate and already be running away by the time his target is calling in for backup and looking to the wounded. I would call the hidden bomb more cowardly then.


I would geuss that is the other part of it, getting in may not be the real issue, but getting out after mission done..if so.

An airstrike will insure that there is infrastructure damage within a certain margin of error. Where as snipers are geared more towards suprise and greater range. (and controling movement lines by pinning or moral)

Explosives are useful for 'damaging' more than just people but objects as well that are harder than organic matter. Or causing concusive forces where the kinetic forces of most regular ammunition wouldn't do.

But explosives may be more expensive than bullets.

Explosives are generally a better placement weapon than a sniper. Although sharpshooters may be quite good but not everyone is a sharpshooter and explosives training as is being done at various locations such as suadi arabia isn't physical but 'intellectual' training. Therefore people without the physical requirement can still acheive percision kills with blast effects.

Neither are ethical it is just that the geneva convention that I geuss the US doesn't follow (or portions of the us doesn't follow) bans some weapons such as shotguns and such because they cause painful damage it is incredibly stupid
you train people to kill and send people to destroy resistance to policy getting over the hump of humane intervention is complete bs. Soilders are sent to places for business not massages.

And an explosive massage or sonic boom to break apartment windows ain't ethical, it is about unethical retribution or enforcement of social values which to not meet with the oppositions veiws.