Suicide bombings - just or unjust?

[machangezi]

For the last few days I was having a debate with one of the Mullahs via e-mail. I raised the question of suicide bombings and before posing my question I reminded him that suicide, in any circumstances, is forbidden in Islam. I asked him why so many people regard sucide bombers as martyrs? He came up with funny answer! According to him the suicide bombers are martyrs because they're giving their life (which isconsidered very sacred as it's Lord's gift to us) to uphold justice. Uphold justice my arse. Killing two soldiers and 50 innocents is what they call upholding justice?

Now I say fuck all these Mullahs who're misguiding general public.

Anyone who says that suicide bombing, which kills 98% percent innocent and only 2% of the target, is justified? What about suicide bombing that kills 100% of the enemies and 0% civilians?

[man with no head]

What is the difference between a suicide bomber and a soldier who goes into battle knowing full well that he likely will die?

If one follows the teachings of Christ, Muhammad, or Buddha shouldn't one avoid all police and military service?

[machangezi]

The difference is that the soldier will try his best to save his arse where as the numnut doesn't. He will go in a public place and kill indiscriminately.

[man with no head]

What about D-Day?

[Boon Mee]

What about D-Day?

What about D-Day?
You didn't support that war either?

[machangezi]

What about it Surasak?

[man with no head]

First thing is I'd say death to all mullahs, priests, and clerics who preach filth, hatred, and teach things that are universally wrong.

Secondly, are we talking about civilians as targets or soldiers?

[machangezi]

First thing is I'd say death to all mullahs, priests, and clerics who preach filth, hatred, and teach things that are universally wrong.

Secondly, are we talking about civilians as targets or soldiers?

The thing is that usually suicide attacks kill more innocents than soldiers. There're very few suicide attacks that only destroyed targets.

So basically we're talking about suicide bombings, which some of my fockwit fellow Muslims regard as martyrdom attack, that kills innocents as well as enemies.

[Boon Mee]

First thing is I'd say death to all mullahs, priests, and clerics who preach filth, hatred, and teach things that are universally wrong.

Secondly, are we talking about civilians as targets or soldiers?

We were discussing D-Day, remember?

[dirtydog]

Sometimes they are just.

[man with no head]

First thing is I'd say death to all mullahs, priests, and clerics who preach filth, hatred, and teach things that are universally wrong.

Secondly, are we talking about civilians as targets or soldiers?

The thing is that usually suicide attacks kill more innocents than soldiers. There're very few suicide attacks that only destroyed targets.

So basically we're talking about suicide bombings, which some of my fockwit fellow Muslims regard as martyrdom attack, that kills innocents as well as enemies.

If we're talking about attacks against civilians I don't think anyone he would (or should at least) support that whether it's through guided missiles, cluster bombs, or suicide bombings.

Against government or military targets? Different perhaps and it could be justified. Would there be any case in which organized religion recognizes self-sacrifice as being honorable? Is there a difference between suicide and sacrificing one's self to save another? Semantics?

[bradthai]

semantics???
so you agree with suicide bombings?
and the loss of life, for whatever reason?

go strap up then

[man with no head]

Congratulations: you failed to comprehend what I posted.

Let me repost it for you so you can misinterpret it again:

If we're talking about attacks against civilians I don't think anyone he would (or should at least) support that whether it's through guided missiles, cluster bombs, or suicide bombings.

[Butterfly]

Well, it's a desperate measure for desperate causes. But yes, D day could be considered as a mass suicide, but the target was military so it was expected from the military. That's when honor and patriotism becomes handy. The means doesn't really matters, it's the target that matters. So at the end terrorism, that is killing knowingly and indiscriminately civilians, maybe it be through suicide bombing, or from the comfort of a hi-tech bomber, it's still terrorism.

[Boon Mee]

How about a sucide Granny?



She'll have something to tell her grandchildren - if they can work a Quija Board!

Link

[stroller]

so you agree with suicide bombings?
and the loss of life, for whatever reason?

Well, I don't.
But it's been done before - what do you think of the Japanese kamikaze bombers - an act of righteous patriotism, or plain stupidity, or what?

[raycarey]

the argument could easily be made that suicide bombing is just when it is directed at hard targets...whether they be military or economic in nature.

for example, a bar or restaurant that is frequented by and makes profits from military personnel could be considered a hard target.

an office of any company that is in the business of making profits off of war (halliburton, bechtel, etc...) could be considered a hard target.

in fact, a suicide bomber blowing up a plane or an airport would stop many people from flying, and this in turn would have the effect of causing severe economic damage to a nation's economy.....so in the minds of some, this too could be considered a hard target.

of course many 'innocent' people would die in these attacks on perceived hard targets, but wouldn't they fall under that wonderful term 'collateral damage'?

[Eliminator]

For the last few days I was having a debate with one of the Mullahs via e-mail. I raised the question of suicide bombings and before posing my question I reminded him that suicide, in any circumstances, is forbidden in Islam. I asked him why so many people regard sucide bombers as martyrs? He came up with funny answer! According to him the suicide bombers are martyrs because they're giving their life (which isconsidered very sacred as it's Lord's gift to us) to uphold justice. Uphold justice my arse. Killing two soldiers and 50 innocents is what they call upholding justice?

Now I say fuck all these Mullahs who're misguiding general public.

Anyone who says that suicide bombing, which kills 98% percent innocent and only 2% of the target, is justified? What about suicide bombing that kills 100% of the enemies and 0% civilians?

Did you ask HIM if killing 2% is justified?

[stroller]

This question isn't limited to suicide bombings.
How much 'collateral damage' is acceptable in proportion to the actual targets, military or strategic?

A modern example to consider is Hiroshima, which is widely regarded as having been a legitimate act of war.

[Agent_Smith]

Using violence to exact some sort of Greater justice is like burning down your barn after the horses have escaped. It only creates a bigger problem without solving the initial one. Perhaps the Mullahs and suicide bombers could think that one through. Those who are brainwashed to commit such terrible acts don't realize that their "sacrifice" will only fuel hatred and mistrust and not bring about any sort of justice for their people or religion.

Collateral Damage is just an Orwellian term used by the State to say unintended civilian deaths--still means massacre. The Hiroshima bombing was a wartime massacre. I'm sure the Japanese felt justified in the collateral damage done to Nanking and other Chinese cities.

[man with no head]

I think we've drifted too far off topic here.

If committing suicide is a mortal sin then committing suicide while killing others therefore must be a worse sin....but are there instances where today we actually honor such a thing?

...suicide, in any circumstances, is forbidden in Islam...

If one is a soldier and goes into battle to save another soldier's life but ends up dying in the process then isn't that suicide? What about the Secret Service agent who takes a bullet for the President? Isn't that suicide? Are those acts justified or not justified?

[Boon Mee]

What about the Secret Service agent who takes a bullet for the President? Isn't that suicide? Are those acts justified or not justified?

Whoa!
Bad analogy. The secret service agent 'taking a bullet' for the President has not the concious thought of committing sucide but rather to protect his Commander in Chief. That's his job.

The boys who earn the Congressional Medal of Honor do so not by committing sucide but rather to protect their fellow men. Guess all this is lost on pacifists and those who do not consider there is something 'noble' in protecting one's fellow man...

[man with no head]

The agent or soldier do it without conscious thought. That's what they are trained to do.

If you were to jump on a grenade or jump into a hailstorm of bullets are you suggesting that you would actually think your chances of survival would be great?

It's suicide.

[Boon Mee]

The agent or soldier do it without conscious thought. That's what they are trained to do.

If you were to jump on a grenade or jump into a hailstorm of bullets are you suggesting that you would actually think your chances of survival would be great?

It's suicide.

What's the point...

[man with no head]

Is it justified?