Suicide bombers

[DougShrapnel]

From Sklansky's James Wood post
[ QUOTE ]
Upon reading that I realized James was right. At least as far as the several dozen bad people I knew. And clearly he is right about suicide bombers. Else why would they give up their lives? Surely not just for the 72 virgins. They must have felt that what they were doing was morally right. And that includes the 911 hijackers. (I often think we would have a better chance in the mid east if we would acknowledge this fact rather than simply call them evil criminals. But that is for another thread.)

[/ QUOTE ]

What type of people are these suicide bombers? Most suicide bombers are not the evil scum of the earth that we think they are. They are normally well educated. And well off. Additionaly, suicide bombings only occur when land that is precieved to be thiers, is being occupied by foreign powers. This is not a secret yet from how often it is acknowledged you would think it was. Does this make suicide bombers not as evil as you thought they where?

[m1illion]

Misguided, mentally deranged, too stupid to know better.
Although evil is a possibility, the above is more likely.

[quinn]

[ QUOTE ]
Most suicide bombers are not the evil scum of the earth that we think they are.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wrong.
[ QUOTE ]
They are normally well educated. And well off.

[/ QUOTE ]
Really? Where did you come up with this?
[ QUOTE ]
Additionaly, suicide bombings only occur when land that is precieved to be thiers, is being occupied by foreign powers.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wrong.
[ QUOTE ]
Does this make suicide bombers not as evil as you thought they where?

[/ QUOTE ]
No. Amazingly, nothing you post will change how evil suicide bombers are.

[send_the_msg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Most suicide bombers are not the evil scum of the earth that we think they are.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wrong.
[ QUOTE ]
They are normally well educated. And well off.

[/ QUOTE ]
Really? Where did you come up with this?
[ QUOTE ]
Additionaly, suicide bombings only occur when land that is precieved to be thiers, is being occupied by foreign powers.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wrong.
[ QUOTE ]
Does this make suicide bombers not as evil as you thought they where?

[/ QUOTE ]
No. Amazingly, nothing you post will change how evil suicide bombers are.

[/ QUOTE ]

although i agree he cited no sources, neither did you. "wrong" isn't really worth the time to reply.

[quinn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Most suicide bombers are not the evil scum of the earth that we think they are.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wrong.
[ QUOTE ]
They are normally well educated. And well off.

[/ QUOTE ]
Really? Where did you come up with this?
[ QUOTE ]
Additionaly, suicide bombings only occur when land that is precieved to be thiers, is being occupied by foreign powers.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wrong.
[ QUOTE ]
Does this make suicide bombers not as evil as you thought they where?

[/ QUOTE ]
No. Amazingly, nothing you post will change how evil suicide bombers are.

[/ QUOTE ]

although i agree he cited no sources, neither did you. "wrong" isn't really worth the time to reply.

[/ QUOTE ]

care to cite your sources?

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Most suicide bombers are not the evil scum of the earth that we think they are.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wrong.
[ QUOTE ]
They are normally well educated. And well off.

[/ QUOTE ]
Really? Where did you come up with this?
[ QUOTE ]
Additionaly, suicide bombings only occur when land that is precieved to be thiers, is being occupied by foreign powers.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wrong.
[ QUOTE ]
Does this make suicide bombers not as evil as you thought they where?

[/ QUOTE ]
No. Amazingly, nothing you post will change how evil suicide bombers are.

[/ QUOTE ]

although i agree he cited no sources, neither did you. "wrong" isn't really worth the time to reply.

[/ QUOTE ]

care to cite your sources?

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem incapable of a sensible discussion about this subject, you are just parroting the line we all get fed, whether true or not.

Mack

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Misguided, mentally deranged, too stupid to know better.
Although evil is a possibility, the above is more likely.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the correct answer. If those persons who do those things really think they need to use violence and are morally justified in doing so, then the appropriate targets of that violence are soldiers or individual political leaders, not random civilians.

And the appropriate term is "homicide-bombers".

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]

And the appropriate term is "homicide-bombers".

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this term and do not think it should be encouraged. (Although FOX News would disagree with me)

The term "Suicide-Bomber" to me clearly implies someone using themselves as a bomb in the middle of a crowded area to inflict potentially fatal harm upon those arround them.

Or as dictionary.com says

[ QUOTE ]

Main Entry: suicide bomber
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: a person who deliberately kills themselves when detonating a bomb or commiting a terrorist act

[/ QUOTE ]

All the term "Homicide-Bomber" does is try to make the term more threatning to justify the "War or Terror".

This is the same bullshit as the term "Sharpshooter" in replace of the word "Sniper".

So let me get this straight ...

US Army shoots somebody in the head from 300 ft = Sharpshooter (implies 'good shot, best at what he does')

Anyone else shoots anybody else in the head from 300 ft = Sniper (implies 'coward, assassin, threat to society)

?

It's funny how the "Wasington Sniper" wasn't called the "Washington Shapshooter" by FOX News.

I highly suggest everybody views the documentary "Orwell rolls in his grave" to fully grasp this subject of terminology and the way words are used in manipulation.

Cheers,
SDM

[BluffTHIS!]

Although your comments about sniper vs sharpshooter are correct in pointing out that this is a semantic topic used for propaganda purposes, you have it mixed up regarding homicide bombers. The term "suicide bomber" is favored by those who specifically believe that the people doing this must be operating from a noble basis since they are willing to give their own lives in the process. This however is an example of the informal logical fallacy and rhetorical method of begging the question. The basis for judging whether such acts are morally justified and thus should have a more benovolent term applied to them are firstly, whether their overall cause is just and to what degree. Secondly, whether the means used are proportionate to situation, which means not just the overall level of violence used but also those against whom it is used.

Regarding the overall cause in the case of the Palestinians versus Israel, no objective person would conclude that either side is 100% correct. Plus even if the Palestinians are assumed to be the aggrieved party to the greater degree, the question is do the perceived injustices they suffer require violence in the first place, and secondly is that violence appropriately targreted at civilians?

If you evaluate the situation under the above framework, then I think it is impossible to conclude that blowing up civilians is morally permissible, unless you believe the end always justifies whatever means are used to accomplish it. If you do believe that, then you are not really able to make moral judgements at all, and will have only contributed to an escalating cycle of violence. And thus, if blowing up civilians is not in fact morally legitimate, then it constitutes murder, regardless of whether the murderer killed himself in the process. Therefore the term "homicide bomber" is correct.

Mohammed Atta one of the 9/11 hijackers was a graduate student. These people are brainwashed to be homocidal fanatics. It does not mean they are necessarily unintelligent. Although large numbers of them are poor and uneducated a suprising number of them are educated and well off.