NationStates Jolt Archive

Is suicide bombing more evil than other bombing, assuming similar casualties?

....not counting perpetrator, when applicable.

Which bombing is more inherently evil, nucular bombing or suicide bombing?




pollinating...

IMO, a suicide bomber is more likely to be a fanatic, therefore harder to reason with. That's what makes it different from a non-suicide bombing.

IMO, a suicide bomber is more likely to be a fanatic, therefore harder to reason with. That's what makes it different from a non-suicide bombing.
and the evilness?

Nuclear bombing, obviously.

And people don't suicide-bomb unless there's no other way to "safely" deliver their payload. As I've said before, as an example, if the Palestinians had bomber jets then they'd be flying over Isreal and blowing them up that way.

As it stands now, people blow themselves up. And there's nothing more intrinsically evil about that than conventional bombing methods.

I voted any bombing done by a Muslim.

Suicide bmbing is not more evil than any other type of bombing, but it is more frightening to the Western psyche. It simply makes no sense to us (in general) that anyone would be willing to blow themselves up in this way. That level of fanaticism is frightening.

As to the nuclear vs suicide, they are not mutually exclusive. They are simply different aspects of a bombing (the explosive type and the delivery method).

I voted any bombing done by a Muslim.

Urmmm... why?

Urmmm... why?
Because the only bombings done by Muslims lately are done by Muslim terrorists. I don't approve of terrorism. I didn't vote USian because we are justified in bombing Afghanistan and we try to use precision guided bombs to minimize civilian casualties.

Is suicide bombing more evil than other bombing, assuming similar casualties?

....not counting perpetrator, when applicable.

Which bombing is more inherently evil, nucular bombing or suicide bombing?




pollinating...I'm having trouble imagining a suicide bombing that would cost as many lives as a nuclear strike...

I'm having trouble imagining a suicide bombing that would cost as many lives as a nuclear strike...
nuculear suicede bombing, perchance.

Because the only bombings done by Muslims lately are done by Muslim terrorists. I don't approve of terrorism. I didn't vote USian because we are justified in bombing Afghanistan and we try to use precision guided bombs to minimize civilian casualties.
Thats possibly the most racist/idiotic thing I've seen on a forum-just because they use guided missiles doesn't mean people don't die.People DO die,and any death is a tragedy.

Because the only bombings done by Muslims lately are done by Muslim terrorists. I don't approve of terrorism. I didn't vote USian because we are justified in bombing Afghanistan and we try to use precision guided bombs to minimize civilian casualties.

Unlike, for example, in Iraq where you White Phosphorous-ed half of Falluja completely indiscriminately. And the army was told that everyone outside was a target.

But that's a different issue.

And I don't see how you can relate all terrorism to Islam. ETA, the Chechen resistance groups, the IRA and several terrorists groups in the Lebanon are all Christian groups. They've all carried out bombings. And they're all terrorists.

Tell me how that makes Muslims the only terrorists on the planet.

Oh,and I don't agree with terrorism either,just to clear that up.

Thankyou Yootopia!

Thankyou Yootopia!

No problem, for whatever I did.

And I'd doubtless probably do it again if you needed me to!

and the evilness?

In terms of evilness, my main criteria is who is getting bombed, rather than whether it's a suicide bomber or not. A guy who blows up a busload of civilians is more evil than a guy who blows up soldiers in his own country.

You just agreed with me is all.
"Islam is the cause of terrorism."
Yes,and George Bush is popular.
Proves how ignorant people can be sometimes

Define evil.

Thats possibly the most racist/idiotic thing I've seen on a forum-just because they use guided missiles doesn't mean people don't die.People DO die,and any death is a tragedy.
1) Please name the race that I've offended.

2) Please learn to comprehend what you've read. I didn't say eliminate civilian casualties. I said MINIMIZE civilian casualties.

Define evil.
As in, evil terrorist, our enemies are evil, axis of evil....that kind of evil.

I didn't say eliminate civilian casualties. I said MINIMIZE civilian casualties.

Wouldn't it have been better to leave those countries alone and simply have no civilian casualties.

Unlike, for example, in Iraq where you White Phosphorous-ed half of Falluja completely indiscriminately. And the army was told that everyone outside was a target.

But that's a different issue.

And I don't see how you can relate all terrorism to Islam. ETA, the Chechen resistance groups, the IRA and several terrorists groups in the Lebanon are all Christian groups. They've all carried out bombings. And they're all terrorists.

Tell me how that makes Muslims the only terrorists on the planet.
1) Civilians were told to evacuate Falluja. Anyone remaining behind was there to fight.

2) I never said that all terrorism is Islamic. Fuck, why do people lose all reading comprehension when terrorism and Islam are mentioned in the same post? I just said that the only Muslims using bombs lately are the terrorists among them.

Wouldn't it have been better to leave those countries alone and simply have no civilian casualties.
Iraq, yes. We had no reason to invade. Afghanistan? I would have used nuclear weapons just to make an example of them.

1) Civilians were told to evacuate Falluja. Anyone remaining behind was there to fight. Civilians were told to evacuate New Orleans. Anyone remaining behind was there to loot.

2) I never said that all terrorism is Islamic. Fuck, why do people lose all reading comprehension when terrorism and Islam are mentioned in the same post? I just said that the only Muslims using bombs lately are the terrorists among them.

Because people are stupid and make moronic generalizations.

....
Because people are stupid and make moronic generalizations.
:D

As in, evil terrorist, our enemies are evil, axis of evil....that kind of evil.

Terrorists are not nesasarily evil, just misinformed. They belive in their cause zealosly enough to take human life to further their belief.

1) Civilians were told to evacuate Falluja. Anyone remaining behind was there to fight.

Possibly the civilians stayed because they don't like being fucked around by the USA and their own barely legitimate government.

Would you give in to an invading force?

2) I never said that all terrorism is Islamic. Fuck, why do people lose all reading comprehension when terrorism and Islam are mentioned in the same post? I just said that the only Muslims using bombs lately are the terrorists among them.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. If somebody invaded the USA and you started blowing their troops up after they'd invaded, would that make you a terrorist? Or a freedom fighter?

*whatever you said about nuking Afghanistan*

If you nuked Afghanistan, then you wouldn't be "making an example of them", you'd be killing the civilans. The "baddies" in Afghanistan have nuclear-proof bunkers in the mountains, courtesy of the USA. All that would happen is that the world would basically end. If anyone uses a nuclear weapon now, then everyone'll retaliate. And that is not a good thing.

Terrorists are not nesasarily evil, just misinformed. They belive in their cause zealosly enough to take human life to further their belief.
I will add that to my signature, thank you.

Terrorists are not nesasarily evil, just misinformed. They belive in their cause zealosly enough to take human life to further their belief.

Hmmmmm, you could also describe a Coalition Soldier as that.

Possibly the civilians stayed because they don't like being fucked around by the USA and their own barely legitimate government.

Would you give in to an invading force?
If my neighborhood was about to be the scene of a battle between insurgents and the US Marine corps I'd get my ass out of there ASAP. To do otherwise is suicidally stupid. On the bright side, any residents of Faluja who stayed behind are now out of the gene pool. The next generation might be smarter.


One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. If somebody invaded the USA and you started blowing their troops up after they'd invaded, would that make you a terrorist? Or a freedom fighter? Zarqaui, Bin Laden, and their pals are not freedom fighters, unless by freedom fighter you mean one who fights against freedom.



If you nuked Afghanistan, then you wouldn't be "making an example of them", you'd be killing the civilans. The "baddies" in Afghanistan have nuclear-proof bunkers in the mountains, courtesy of the USA. All that would happen is that the world would basically end. If anyone uses a nuclear weapon now, then everyone'll retaliate. And that is not a good thing.I never said I was a nice guy. Nor did I say that I'd be a good president. I'd have killed alot of Afghan civilians and I wouldn't have lost a moment's sleep over it.

... Zarqaui, Bin Laden, and their pals are not freedom fighters, unless by freedom fighter you mean one who fights against freedom....
How does one fight against both occupation and freedom at the same time? On the same front?

How does one fight against both occupation and freedom at the same time? On the same front?
Easy. You fight the occupiers in hopes of building a repressive theocracy after they leave.

Easy. You fight the occupiers in hopes of building a repressive theocracy after they leave.
Well, at least it's your own repressive theocracy. And your own oil. Freedom comes in many guises. One is the freedom to choose whether you want a repressive theocracy or not.

Well, at least it's your own repressive theocracy. And your own oil. Freedom comes in many guises. One is the freedom to choose whether you want a repressive theocracy or not.
Yeah, one man, one vote, one time, if you even get that. That's some freedom.

Well, at least it's your own repressive theocracy. And your own oil. Freedom comes in many guises. One is the freedom to choose whether you want a repressive theocracy or not.

What about the freedom of the people who DON'T want a repressive theocracy, but don't have the means to fight off the theocrats?

At the moment I'm the only one who voted american bombing is most evil, so I thought an explanation is needed.
I immediately excluded nuclear bombing, because if that's the same as the atom bomb, I don't think it's ever going to be used.
I voted for american bombing because they don't need those bloody wars. They are the most powerful and one of the most wealthy countries in the world and still they find it necessary to expand or at least keep their influence in some countries.
Suicidal bombing is the act of someone who is or mad or desperate. Especially in the last case, it is more justified than those american bombs.

But of course the comparison is a bit difficult to make because all bombing is evil.
Questions like "who was more evil: Hitler or Stalin" don't make much sense, even for most communists I hope.

Yeah, one man, one vote, one time, if you even get that. That's some freedom.
Are you saying something? If so, what?

What about the freedom of the people who DON'T want a repressive theocracy, but don't have the means to fight off the theocrats?
It is up to them to leave the country, or rebel, or lobby, or terrorize. If a theocracy would be installed. If they dislike it enough.

Are you saying something? If so, what?
I'm saying that if the religious lunatics get to set up their theocracies they won't allow free elections out of fear that the majority might get sick of burquas and stonings. I'm disagreeing with you when you said that the right to choose a repressive theocracy is a type of freedom because once you make that choice you can't ever change your government without a violent revolution.

I'm saying that if the religious lunatics get to set up their theocracies they won't allow free elections out of fear that the majority might get sick of burquas and stonings. I'm disagreeing with you when you said that the right to choose a repressive theocracy is a type of freedom because once you make that choice you can't ever change your government without a violent revolution.
So, the freedom to have ones' freedom taken away is not a freedom? I'd actually think that this is the ultimate freedom. Have you got your definition of freedom somewhere handy and digital?

So, the freedom to have ones' freedom taken away is not a freedom? I'd actually think that this is the ultimate freedom. Have you got your definition of freedom somewhere handy and digital?
What about the people who don't want to live under the theocracy? What about when people get sick and tired of the theocracy?

So, the freedom to have ones' freedom taken away is not a freedom? I'd actually think that this is the ultimate freedom. Have you got your definition of freedom somewhere handy and digital?

Yah, you know what. This argument was started in the 1920s and 30s and settled decisively in the 1940s.

And the conclusion was that Mr. Commies Deleted has the correct interpretation.

If my neighborhood was about to be the scene of a battle between insurgents and the US Marine corps I'd get my ass out of there ASAP. To do otherwise is suicidally stupid. On the bright side, any residents of Faluja who stayed behind are now out of the gene pool. The next generation might be smarter.

Where could all of the people who were able to leave Falluja go, though?

That was one of the main problems. Your city is surrounded by soldiers with "shoot to kill" orders. If you leave, you're going to get shot. If you stay, you're going to get burned horribly with WP or MK77. Neither is really a great option.

Zarqaui, Bin Laden, and their pals are not freedom fighters, unless by freedom fighter you mean one who fights against freedom.

Yeah, I know. But on the other hand, your everyday suicide-bomber in Iraq is generally a freedom fighter. They fight to free themselves from martial law and a government that can't do anything. That's a fairly reasonable cause, don't you think?

I never said I was a nice guy. Nor did I say that I'd be a good president. I'd have killed alot of Afghan civilians and I wouldn't have lost a moment's sleep over it.

I would have to hope that you would lose sleep over it when the USA became scorched earth 120 minutes later, though.

Where could all of the people who were able to leave Falluja go, though?

That was one of the main problems. Your city is surrounded by soldiers with "shoot to kill" orders. If you leave, you're going to get shot. If you stay, you're going to get burned horribly with WP or MK77. Neither is really a great option. Most did leave though. That means that there was a place for those internally displaced people and safe passage was provided.



Yeah, I know. But on the other hand, your everyday suicide-bomber in Iraq is generally a freedom fighter. They fight to free themselves from martial law and a government that can't do anything. That's a fairly reasonable cause, don't you think?Those who target soldiers, yeah. I agree. I guess I was wrong in my previous statement. Some Muslims who aren't terrorists are bombing shit.




I would have to hope that you would lose sleep over it when the USA became scorched earth 120 minutes later, though.Who's going to risk mutually assured destruction on behalf of Afghanistan?

What about the people who don't want to live under the theocracy? What about when people get sick and tired of the theocracy?
They should feel free to revolt then. Happened all over South America, and seems to be turning out nicely.

Yah, you know what. This argument was started in the 1920s and 30s and settled decisively in the 1940s.

And the conclusion was that Mr. Commies Deleted has the correct interpretation.
The interpretation that people may not choose their own form of government? That a democracy is compulsory? What is his interpretation?

The interpretation that people may not choose their own form of government? That a democracy is compulsory? What is his interpretation?
Just drop it dude. A bunch of people from the 40's that I've never heard of have already sided with me. Isn't that evidence enough for you?

Most did leave though. That means that there was a place for those internally displaced people and safe passage was provided.

I'd like to see some figures about refugees, please. Otherwise I'm personally of the assumption that basically everyone present died in the resulting chemical and conventional attacks.

Who's going to risk mutually assured destruction on behalf of Afghanistan?

Anyone who wants any excuse to nuke the USA.

Just drop it dude. A bunch of people from the 40's that I've never heard of have already sided with me. Isn't that evidence enough for you?
No, it's not. Where people side has nothing to do with evidence.

I'd like to see some figures about refugees, please. Otherwise I'm personally of the assumption that basically everyone present died in the resulting chemical and conventional attacks.



Anyone who wants any excuse to nuke the USA.
and several months after the invasion of Falujah, 300,000 Iraqis, mostly Sunnis, remain refugees. http://www.spacedaily.com/upi/2005/0131-161745-outsideview-meir.html

At least 300,000 left. Acutally many more. The 300,000 figure are the ones who had still not returned home as of Jan. 31, 2004. I know you couldn't actually believe that the Marines slaughtered a whole city. I can't believe anyone is that dumb.


So nobody then?

No, it's not. Where people side has nothing to do with evidence.
7 out of 5 doctors believe where people side is evidence.

Any bombing against civilians is worse than a bombing against military targets. If a nuclear weapon were used against a military target, like a bunker-buster, it would be far less evil than a suicide bombing in the middle of a fast food resturant against innocent civilians. Attacks against military targets are justified, whereas attacks against innocent civilians are not. Dropping a nuclear weapon onto a city full of civilians would be equally vile.

So to me, it isn't the type of bombing, but where the bombing is directed and the overall justification behind it. I picked suicide bombers, since suicide bombings are mostly directed toward civilians without legitimate military justification.

Of course, the terrorist sympathizers on this thread will probably try to justify the poor suicide terrorists while demonizing countries that have nuclear weapons. :rolleyes:

The interpretation that people may not choose their own form of government? That a democracy is compulsory? What is his interpretation?

Yah. In some parts of the world now, democracy is compulsory. Parties that advocate establishing dictatorships &c. are outlawed.

7 out of 5 doctors believe where people side is evidence.
You know, one can have a doctorate in, say, physics, and still his opinion on issues in constitutional law may be worthless. What are you saying? What doctors? When, where, why? Evidence of what?

7 out of 5? Are you sure about that?

Yah. In some parts of the world now, democracy is compulsory. Parties that advocate establishing dictatorships &c. are outlawed.
By national, self-imposed law, I presume.

You know, one can have a doctorate in, say, physics, and still his opinion on issues in constitutional law may be worthless. What are you saying? What doctors? When, where, why? Evidence of what?

7 out of 5? Are you sure about that?
Yes I'm sure. 7 our of 5 MEDICAL doctors. Mainly proctologists were polled.

Who's going to risk mutually assured destruction on behalf of Afghanistan?
You apparently.

Yes I'm sure. 7 our of 5 MEDICAL doctors. Mainly proctologists were polled.
...how many medical doctors were there? I am a bit dense, as you may have noticed, so type slowly...

...how many medical doctors were there? I am a bit dense, as you may have noticed, so type slowly...
Man I don't know. I didn't conduct the survey. I hired some kindergarteners to do it. They work cheap.

By national, self-imposed law, I presume.
psst...that means they get to choose. For themselves.

At least 300,000 left. Acutally many more. The 300,000 figure are the ones who had still not returned home as of Jan. 31, 2004. I know you couldn't actually believe that the Marines slaughtered a whole city. I can't believe anyone is that dumb.

It was a city of 350k... 200k now live in it. Your statistics have gone awry somewhere, although it may be that 50k stayed and most of them died, about about half of the people who left came back, and the other half went... somewhere...

So nobody then?

Oh please... China, Russia, a couple of countries in Western Europe, possibly the Pakistanis, Isreal if even a speck of radioactive dust landed in Tel Aviv and North Korea.

It was a city of 350k... 200k now live in it. Your statistics have gone awry somewhere, although it may be that 50k stayed and most of them died, about about half of the people who left came back, and the other half went... somewhere...



Oh please... China, Russia, a couple of countries in Western Europe, possibly the Pakistanis, Isreal if even a speck of radioactive dust landed in Tel Aviv and North Korea.
How the fuck did my statistics go awry? My statistics showed that as of January 2004 three hundred thousand residents still had not returned to the city.

Didn't you claim to be a genius on another thread today? You don't strike me as very bright for a genius.

By national, self-imposed law, I presume.

Actually, I think it was sort of externally imposed. With bombs and soldiers.

How the fuck did my statistics go awry? My statistics showed that as of January 2004 three hundred thousand residents still had not returned to the city.

Didn't you claim to be a genius on another thread today? You don't strike me as very bright for a genius.

So you're suggesting that there were only fifty thousand-ish people there?

That doesn't sound too likely to me.

So you're suggesting that there were only fifty thousand-ish people there?

That doesn't sound too likely to me.
What? Fifty thousand people where? I'm actually assuming that your figure of a pre-battle population of 350,000 is accurate. I've got statistics showing that 300,000 were still displaced, therefore not slaughtered, as of January 2004. I'm also assuming that there were more internally displaced residents of Falujah who returned to their city prior to January 2004.

I think my assumptions are quite reasonable.

Man I don't know. I didn't conduct the survey. I hired some kindergarteners to do it. They work cheap.
Would you pass me a link?

Would you pass me a link?
Sorry. I can't. My leprosy has rotted my fingers off and I can't type now.

Sorry. I can't. My leprosy has rotted my fingers off and I can't type now.
Did you type that with the noodly appendage?:eek:

Did you type that with the noodly appendage?:eek:
I'm holding one of my leperous, gangrenous, necrotic fingers between my teeth and poking it at the keyboard.

What? Fifty thousand people where? I'm actually assuming that your figure of a pre-battle population of 350,000 is accurate. I've got statistics showing that 300,000 were still displaced, therefore not slaughtered, as of January 2004. I'm also assuming that there were more internally displaced residents of Falujah who returned to their city prior to January 2004.

I think my assumptions are quite reasonable.

Hmm... this is casting doubt into my mind. Your figure is quite reasonable considering it's a large city, but if there were only 350k people to begin with, then it sounds a bit unlikely. I think I may need to check my statistsics, sorry for arguing with you if I was totally wrong.

...Yeah, I know. But on the other hand, your everyday suicide-bomber in Iraq is generally a freedom fighter. They fight to free themselves from martial law and a government that can't do anything. That's a fairly reasonable cause, don't you think?...

yah, if that's what most of the suicide bombers were targeting. But there have been an exponential amount of attacks against civilians, or civilians end up being the victims... anywhos...


OP? nuculear? are you GWB by chance?

.......
OP? nuculear? are you GWB by chance?
Nay, I am but a wormly admirer.

Bombs aren't inherently evil.

Bombs aren't inherently evil.
no?