Two days ago, Robert Pape (author of Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism) was on the Times op-ed page explaining the Chechnya-driven suicide bombings in Russia:
As we have discovered in our research on Lebanon, the West Bank, Iraq, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and elsewhere, suicide terrorist campaigns are almost always a last resort against foreign military occupation. Chechnya is a powerful demonstration of this phenomenon at work.
A good thing that Pape and co-authors Lindsey O’Rourke and Jenna McDermit mentioned the West Bank. But given the centrality of the Palestinian suicide bomber in western demonology–Thomas Friedman (and numerous other friends of Israel) justified the Iraq war on that basis–Pape’s point surely deserves elaboration. If you look through Bob Pape’s website at the University of Chicago, you will find numerous articles that describe suicide terrorism by Palestinians as a response to occupation. Here, for instance, is Pape in Turkey’s newspaper, Zaman, saying that the first Palestinian suicide terrorists followed 20 years of occupation.
The Times has had Pape write often in the last few years, including this important piece in ’03, saying suicide terror is not about Islam, the Tamil Tigers have used it more than anyone. But the Times has never had him directly address the issue of the Israeli occupation and what he routinely terms "Palestinian resistance versus Israel." Why not? Its readers deserve that insight.
RE: …But the Times has never had him directly address the issue of the Israeli occupation and what he routinely terms “Palestinian resistance versus Israel.” Why not? – Weiss
MY COMMENT: Oh, Phil! You’re such a hopeless romantic.
It is morally wrong to justify suicide bombings in any way.
Erste wir essen; dann kommt die Moral — Some German Red.
I disagree. We should condemn suicide bombings of any type, and for any reason.
Knowing the reasons, isn’t justifying the end result. Stop being obtuse (purposefully of course) you stupid troll.
Cliff, my gryoscopic internal bullshit detector tells me that the person posting under the name BSDNOW is not the same person previously posting under that name. The tone and syntax are off. Or else BSDNOW recently attended a seminar on engagement of anti-Zionist argumentation.
kapok: Bertold Brecht, Dreigroschenoper/Three penny opera: Erst kommt das Fressen, dann kommt die Moral.
“fressen” versus “essen” is usually used for animals, used for humans it is vulgar, the main usage–from the top of my head–seems to be connected with eating too much or in a not very aesthetic manner.
“It is morally wrong to justify suicide bombings in any way. ”
BDS
—————–
And surely you know that this IS mantra number one in the hasbara book, don’t you? ” ALWAYS stress the point that whatever the grievances of the Palestinians could be, empathise with that and show understanding and concern BUT always always stress the point that suicide bombing CANNOT be morally justified.
BDSNOW, are you sure you’re not doing a job over here? Please feel free to insult me but do not insult my intelligence. Thank you.
I’m not sure what you mean exactly. I believe it’s really important that we categorically reject suicide bombings. It’s morally wrong.
And how do you justify dropping a one ton bomb from a plane on a building full of civilians, for example, BDS? Is that less horrific on the scale of horrors than a suicide bombing?
so you can’t categorically reject suicide bombing?
Helen Thomas was asked about suicide bombings and I think she responded quite well:
ANDREW DENTON: What would say to a suicide bomber?
HELEN THOMAS: Why? What is it about our country that we have not tried to understand why are they doing these things. You can tell a suicide bomber has reached the end of his rope. I think you have to find out why. There has been no attempt in this country of finding out what is terrorism? What motivates these people? Why would they give up their lives when we know people cherish their lives? Because they see no hope and they also have felt so pushed down. I do think that our lack of curiosity of what motivates these people. See I don’t believe it’s 12 virgins in heaven that baloney. I think it’s a deeper feeling of being absolutely the end of the road.
ANDREW DENTON: To many people in this country a suicide bomber represents the darkest of dark forces.
HELEN THOMAS: Well it is. But what’s the difference between a suicide bomber and dropping a missile in a house and blowing up everybody? Napalm and things that we’ve done in Vietnam and now. I mean what did we do at Fallujah? We left one tree. We wiped them out because they had rebelled and revolted and pushed us back for a while. Came in with a vengeance and nobody even mentions it. It was carnage at the end.
link to abc.net.au
This article is specifically about suicide bombings and their justifications. I think we should step back from justifying these terrible acts. They degrade our stance and ruin our cause.
No one is trying to justify them BSD.
People are only trying to understand them.
This article is about resistance to oppression.
Nice try BDS, but again,don’t insult our intelligence by dodging the question..I asked you how suicide bombing is more horrific than dropping bombs from planes on civilian buildings..
BTW, I’ve been on blogs long enough to be able to detect the tricks and the manoeuvres, so let’s put the cards on the table..What made the American public specifically, and the world wide opinion generally, believe that suicide bombing is the “darkest of forces” or the “ultimate evil” while thinking nothing of flattening whole neighbourhoods with bombs and missiles as in the Dahiyeh(Beirut) and Gaza? Who crafted this wicked piece of propaganda in order to dehumanise the Palestinians and portray them as blood thirsty monsters ? ..Answer this question and we’ll take it from there..
So we have PEP – when any mentation about I/P is verboten. Now BDS is introducing PESB – when any mentation about Suicide Bombing is verboten.
What’s up with that? Is this his personal blind spot or something?
Isn’t this why we had the Renaissance? So we could think for ourselves?
Tricks and manoeuvres from the hasbara book: “The Israel project 2009″:
Trick 1-Show empathy for BOTH sides. ( It works better in terms of effective communication, n’est-ce pas?)
Trick2- Use empathy (sniff! I really feel for you suffering people! Ain’t I a nice guy?)
Trick3- Clearly differentiate between the Palestinian people and Hamas.(I wonder why? NOT!)
And here is the point which made me think that some here may not be as “innocent” as they like to present themselves!
Trick4- “There is NEVER, EVER, any justification for the deliberate slaughter (suicide bombing) of women and children. The primary Palestinian public relations goal is to demonstrate that the so-called “helplessness of the oppressed Palestinians” is what to cause them to go out and kill children…THIS MUST BE CHALLENGED IMMEDIATELY, AGGRESSIVELY AND DIRECTLY:
” We may disagree about politics and we may disagree about economics. But there is one fundamental principle that all peoples from all parts of the globe will agree on: Civilized people do not target innocent women and children (my derriere!) for death..”
So basically, BDSNOW, it was a very nice try indeed!
.
What’s up with that? Is this his personal blind spot or something?
John
——————-
No John… You need to familiarise yourself with the source of this trick..It’s from the hasbara book “The Israel Project 2009″ GLOBAL LANGUAGE DICTIONARY..You can read it here:
link to australiansforpalestine.com
What is morally worse, a suicide bombing (e.g., Japanese kamikazee attacks in Zeroes), or dropping a more lethal bomb, with no intent by the bomber crew of suicide? E.g., Dresden, or Gaza? Or Big Boy? Why is bombing less immoral or unethical than suicide bombing? What is clear, whatever the motives, that suicide boming is rooted in utter desperation. Now, yonira, that we have rid ourselves of your red herring, let’s discuss the motives for any bombing, and whether they are justified.
bdsnow, i take it from your chosen username you are an advocate of the boycott divestment and sanctioning of israel. please tell me which companies you are now boycotting. what is your bds favorite site? could you please link.
bdsnow, i take it from your chosen username you are an advocate of the boycott divestment and sanctioning of israel
annie
———————
No annie, he’s not. His moniker is BSD not BDS. I changed it because …well, I’m a bit cheeky.
Who is justifying suicide bombings? The article and Pape’s book (which you really should read – obviously as it seems you are stuck at the ‘morally wrong’ bump in the carpet and can’t get your wheels over it) DO NOT JUSTIFY suicide bombings, but rather investigate the nature of suicide bombings – where they occur, profiles of who has performed them, what motivates those who perform them, etc.
Attempting to understand why something occurs allows one to potentially learn how to possibly mitigate or avoid that something.
Studying/Learning is NOT MORAL SANCTION OR JUSTIFICATION.
Why do suicide bombings occur? In a word: Hopelessness.
I don’t agree. I think they are very harmful and don’t always come from hopelessness. We should focus on BDS and I/P isses. Justifying or trying to legitimize suicide bombings will end up blowing up in our faces. These are despicable acts and we should have the courage to condemn them
No one is justifying suicide bombings or the killing of civilians here.
People are merely trying to study the phenomenon of suicide bombing. There is a huge difference between justifying something and “learning” about something.
You are still stuck on that bump in the carpet.
Show me the sentence in the article or book that ‘justifies or legitimizes’ suicide bombings. Explaining why and understanding motivations does not justify or legitimize – it merely illuminates and helps provide understanding.
I agree with you that there is no moral justification for suicide bombings. On the other hand, I have to allow for some doubt about what a person can be driven to and what I would myself be able to tolerate without acting out in anger. I am a weak sinner and am not to judge others – walk a mile in another man’s shoes, etc. These are terrible acts, but learning about them is not the same as some sanctioning them.
Murder is also without moral justification, but occurs and is studied and is often justified – what is difficult for you to process regarding suicide bombing?
BSDNOW,
You should know that there is no such thing as “our cause”. This isn’t an organization. You are on your own in whatever it is you think you’re advocating. Everyone else is interested in the application of international law and basic equality.
Furthermore, your utterly pathetic attempt at hijacking this thread with such childish malfeasance and derailing the discussion is disgraceful.
When will you and the other Zionist provocateurs of your kind get a clue and realize that you and your games are more transparent than vacuum itself?
Piss off. Your presence makes me nauseous.
You da man, Avi. Sorry I got pulled into it. Goodnight.
I don’t agree. I think they are very harmful and don’t always come from hopelessness.
BDSNOW
————————-
Ha ha ha! Stop it, you’re killing me! You can’t possibly be following the script word for word, can you! I mean! Give it up! You’ve been EXPOSED!!
its sad you guys can’t denounce a suicide bombing…..
I denounce the occupation and the siege, because thats what I believe. I think, deep down, you guys are enamored by them.
sick…….
I wonder why BDSNOW disappeared all of a sudden..(Not really!)
Yonira, I’ve seen an occasional lefty defend suicide bombing and it is sick, so when I saw your comment on the sidebar I wondered if that was happening here. It isn’t. You’re lying.
This is why you’re called out for being a stupid troll virtually everytime you post.
We all know this game. Asking us why we don’t ‘reject suicide bombing’ is dishonest.
It’s a loaded question. We of course reject it as a tactic and believe, by definition that it is immoral.
Talking about the legitimate grievances of the people involved is another story. People do not do things for no reason. Talking about the reasons does not legitimize the actions partaken in rage/etc.
You’re so stupid. I mean, I know I say that a lot, but you really are completely mediocre and petty. Didn’t you think we’d see right through this line of question?
No one is justifying suicide bombing. No one is attempting to legitimize it.
It’s only you, who wants to see that happen. You’re sick-minded, BSD. Get a life and stop trolling this blog.
Cliff,
thanks for having the balls that most people on this site don’t have.
Kinda the exact opposite of what you said prior to your ban from here though huh Cliffy boy, that must have sucked to have your entire existence (this blog) taken away from you for a callous remark about a grieving mother.
Donald, you are full of shit, i never said anything close to what you are implying. I simply wanted someone to say that they denounce suicide bombing and they couldn’t.
I know the reasons just as well as anyone else, I can’t the hopelessness some of these bombers must have felt.
Too bad the bombers are the biggest pawns in the game.
‘Cliffy boy’ – ouch!
I never insulted Nurit. What I criticized was the juxtaposition of ‘the grieving mother’ by Medea Benjamin who only recently had began to speak out about the I-P issue.
I elaborated on this meme (as I saw it) of the I-P conflict, and referenced a blog entry by I think…Seham? And Ahmed (I can’t recall the names exactly).
The point was that, I did not agree w/ the humanization of the Palestinian life, vis a vis Jewish suffering.
In retrospect, I was too knee-jerk (and probably projecting). It was an angry post that I feel embarrassed about now.
Anyways – I dunno how that relates. I didn’t grovel to come back. People here spoke up for me. You’ve been trying to parse everyone here for a long time.
‘Do you reject suicide bombing?’ is a shallow question.
People here know that the real question is, ‘Do the Palestinians have legitimate grievances?’ – YES, they do.
I read on this blog elsewhere, an interesting snippet about the comparison of the 48′ Palestinian experience w/ the 67′ Israeli experience.
That’s essentially it. I’ve seen you dismiss Palestinian suffering and history as a raw deal. That they need to just ‘get over it’. But everyone knows what a wannabe ‘Jewish exceptionalist’ you are and how you ‘pride’ yourself on ‘Jewish accomplishments’ (like Anna Baltzer’s physical/intellectual assets, the Nobel vs. the Gaza children, etc. etc.).
You’re just like those spoiled kids in the Blumenthal video. What the hell do you know? You’re rooting for your team is all. You have no moral seriousness and no sincerity.
yonira ( the contested girl),
I will be honest to you on the ‘suicide bombing’ issue. I think Zionists are responsible for the death not just the innocent Israeli citizen but also for the life of the young women or men who commit the suicide. They are also responsible for the criminal acts of retaliation by their fascists army against the families of the young suicide bombers and they have to pay the price. The cancer is Zionism, yonira.
Cliff thanks for the clarification and please don’t get intimidated by yonira. Who cares about this phony crap?
yonira I don’t believe anybody here is advocating for suicide bombing. Why waste time with huff and puff against a position that nobody holds?
But the practical point is that the occupation, the siege, the Gaza Tukey Shoot, for example, results in on-going distinct substantial destruction, much more than
resistance by a handful of suicide bombers. When one discusses suicide bombers please put in the context in the real world. Humans are not
innately geared towards volunteer self-destruction. When it happens, why is that?
“i never said anything close to what you are implying. I simply wanted someone to say that they denounce suicide bombing and they couldn’t.”
You’re lying again. It’s not like we couldn’t use a liberal Zionist around here to point out when people on the anti-Zionist side say something stupid. But most of the time, rather than doing that, you just waste time. What you said, which I reproduce below, is that people here don’t denounce suicide bombing because “you guys” are enamored with them. Then I checked the thread and people didn’t sound enamored at all.
“its sad you guys can’t denounce a suicide bombing…..
I denounce the occupation and the siege, because thats what I believe. I think, deep down, you guys are enamored by them.
sick…….”
Just saw aparasian’s comment and that one I disagree with, though it depends on how far he goes with it. In one sense Israel is responsible for all the deaths, in the same way that the US is responsible for all the violent deaths in Iraq since the invasion, but the people who actually plan or commit violent acts against civilians are responsible for their own actions. It’s just not the case that all the blame for a given crime has to be placed entirely on one person or group. If I go into a bar and start loudly insulting people, a fight breaks out and an innocent bystander is injured by a flying bottle, I’m morally responsible, but so is the person who threw the bottle.
As for yonira’s remark, I just realized he might have meant people here are”enamored” by the occupation–if so, that’s almost incoherent. It’s like saying that someone who denounces suicide bombing is “enamored” by it. I know people who focus exclusively on the crimes of Muslim terrorists–it’s one-sided, but their condemnation is sincere. They just are hypocritical about not condemning Western atrocities, but it doesn’t mean they are “enamored” by Muslim crimes.
Donald,
I believe in the supremacy of the human life value, The suicide bombers commit their acts because they are deeply desperate not because they love death as the Hasbara try to propagandise. The act itself is unfair but the suicide bombers pay their lives so how could you hold them responsible anymore? there is no doubt that is tragic, especially because those who pay for Zionism are innocent civilians on both sides why i hold Zionists as responsible. The complexity of the I/P conflict is amplified by the fact that Zionism is an organised ideology fighting against defenceless people, its not a conflict between two people with two different political ideology and strategy.
A successful suicide bomber can still be morally condemned, even if he or she is a little beyond our reach now. But there are also the people who plan the suicide attacks. They are war criminals, just like, say, the Zionists who murdered Arab civilians back in the 30′s and 40′s (or the ones who do it now).
I think the Israeli crimes are worse, but larger war crimes by one side don’t justify smaller ones by the other.
What do you object to?
Suicide? The killing of civilians? The fact that it was a strategy deployed against Israel?
I’m interested to know.
In an earlier thread concerning Britain having dealt with terrorism before, yonira piped up with the “Jewish freedom fighters” as one of the groups Britain has faced in the past. That indicates to me that he has no qualms about innocent civilians being killed by “terrorists” if those terrorists/freedom fighters are Jewish. Over 300 people were killed by those “Jewish freedom fighters” in Palestine in 1946, the year that the Irgun bombed the King David Hotel, and executed numerous other smaller bombings.
Are we surprised? Yonira goes around trying to paint all of us as terrorist sympathizers when he’s the real terrorist sympathizer. I’ve already had conversations with him about the King David Hotel bombing, and he said he thought that was justified.
BSDnow , join me in categorically reject and condemning the dahiya doctrine as it intends to turn civilian neighborhoods into military bases and we all know they are not. not only is it morally wrong like any killing of innocents (suicide bombings), civilian death tolls are much higher plus it is something we do have power to stop and the power to prosecute.
the israel government has engaged in a combination lawfare and propaganda (with the complicity of our msm) to justify this inhumane doctrine.
join me in condemning this atrocious policy/war crime! i condemn all civilian targets , do you?
Annie, don’t keep us in suspense. Has BDSMNow! joined hands with you in head-bowed solemnity to condemn all Israelis who would target civilians in Gaza, Lebanon and elsewhere? When you’re done, allow me to borrow BDSMNow! so that he/she/it and I might mutually and publically condemn the continued use of ‘human shields’ by the IDF in direct contravention of the Israeli high court’s orders, and in violation of international law. Are you with me, BDSMNow!?
lol, i’m not holding my breath marc.
The Times and others (US government, CNN, NPR … take your pick) don’t want any explanations that will undermine the pre-determined mission. Facts are irrelevant once the Hive Mind of American Oligarchy is made up. Once Bush & Co. and other Arab-haters (Thomas Friedman, Michael Walzer, Michael Ignatieff — it’s a helluva long list) had decided that the US was absolutely going to ‘liberate’ Iraq, no fact or combination of fact was going to sway them.
Likewise, it is an Article of Faith in the United States that Israel is Right, no matter what. So the worst that any fact can do is raise questions about Israel’s tactics, efficiency, thoroughness, attentiveness, etc. — details. Anything that would raise questions of regarding pathological racism among Israelis or regarding the infestation of Israeli government by war criminals must be excluded from the conversation. That is why a conference sponsored by the “Lawfare Project” (or any other of the many recent conferences on the Goldstone Report) must exclude any and all who could raise inconvenient truths. Similar examples are legion and span the US, Europe and Israel.
Well, the “explanation” often promoted by lying Zionists and lying Neo-Cons is that Arabs/Muslims are doing it all for the 72 virgins + 1 whore up in heaven. It’s effective propaganda that manages to squelch all debate on the issue, much in the same way “anti-Semitic” accusations are used to squelch debate on Israel’s own violations of international law and basic moral virtues.
Precisely Avi, the 72 virgins is given as the primary impetus behind the bombings.
If that were the case, why aren’t all 1.3 billion Muslims strappin up?
The primary reason for most suicide attacks stems from political grievances. The 72 virgins meme is probably just brought up by indoctrinaters as kind of a final push (if its even brought up) after all the political arguments have been made.
In any case most Muslims I know are unaware of the 72 virgins awaiting them in paradise. It seems that Westerners tend to be more familiar with that aspect of the faith than do actual Muslims.
Kind of like how the only people who ever bring up the “Elder Protocols of Zion” in forums like this are Zionists.
Pingback: Do you believe Brian Jones of the Rolling Stones was murdered? :The Longtail Music Catalog
I want to play devil’s advocate if I may:
Which element of actions of suicide bomber is morally reprehensible, so that we would always disagree with it?
I personally don’t believe many people have problems with suicide aspect of the matter, and we can show that fighting to the death when facing the inevitable prospect of being killed/destroyed/slaughtered is neither surprising nor new – Spartans and Warsaw Ghetto uprising spring to mind.
We even celebrate the noble suicide in film like Armageddon or Alien. I haven’t seen Avatar, but there should be at least one noble death defending land and people in it.
Many people have even less problem with bombing the enemy that is occupying somebody else’s land. International Law allows and endorses the defensive warfare and acts of resistance by any means necessary and therefore any means available. Don’t think many people would condemn French or Polish Resistance during the Second World War.
Can we argue that attacking the aggressor on his home ground is immoral? This would question the morality of entering Japan and Germany in the Second World War. Are you able, and are you morally justified, to pursue the aggressor across the border to prevent him from re-arming and coming back again next morning?
Is it morally justified to attack the soldiers of-duty? When they are resting, changed into non combat slacks and shirts and gone drinking, dancing and being merry? Should we consider enemy camps of-limits?
Which brings me to the deaths of non-combatants in the suicide attack. What level of “collateral damage” by which I mean civilians, not of-duty military personnel, is justified in a defensive bombing campaign? 90+% as in Gaza and some of the drone attacks we perpetrated in Afganistan? less? How much less? 10% as in some hostage rescue actions?
I don’t believe morality of suicide bombing as a tool of resistance fighting is as black and white morally as some wish to argue.
International Law (as far as I know) does not endorse resistance by any means necessary – the targeting of civilians isn’t ever permissible, which is why Goldstone also condemned Hamas for their (unguided) Qassam rocket attacks on Israel during the Gaza Massacre.
I agree suicide bombing is a complicated issue when pulled apart. I think you’re right that many people would have little or no issue with the suicide component. Personally I view it as a great tragedy and object to the campaign to rename them homicide- or genocide-bombing. The targeting of civilians is never acceptable. Armed resistance to occupation, with military targets is legal. I suspect this is a formulation that could lead to people to argue in favour of suicide bombing. Whether or not a person holds this opinion, suicide bombing is no longer used by the various Palestinian liberation groups, which is a very good move tactically.
Very good questions, Eva.
I don’t suppose that many people have read the story of Samson over the generations with the response ‘What an utterly immoral act!’ when he pulls the temple down.
Churchill said that he intended to use the slogan ‘You can always take one with you!’ if the Germans landed in 1940 – most people have not responded by saying that this incitement to suicidal terrorism shows how immoral the British cause of that time was and how Hitler really had the right to subject us to endless occupation until we proved beyond doubt and to the full satisfaction of German opinion that we had come to our senses.
Feelings and immediate responses aren’t decisive, though. It’s easy to say this sort of thing from within a normal world, but I suppose that it’s still true that even in desperate situations there’s no morality unless there are some limits, self-imposed but having some regard to general human sentiment. Also true that one has a duty to remember, even in the midst of conflict, that some day somehow it will be necessary to make peace and that actions that sow profound anger might prevent the arrival of that day. Also true that if you take the ultimate existentialist step and say ‘People in conflict have a right to free themselves of all morality except the duty to win’ you give the same permission to the other side.
These points make me think that one should avoid both ‘terrorist’ and ‘collateral damage’ campaigns except in circumstances that are objectively so extreme that every normal observer can see that ‘it’s now or never’.
I agree that religion is not as important in these things as we have been led to think. The Tamil Tigers proved that all one needs is a massive sense of unavoidable peril and a militaristic temperament. Churchill might have led the British to illustrate that point a few decades earlier.
Even if in fact people do go too far, even far too far, in pursuing a grievance or a cause that fact does not show that their grievance is illegitimate or their cause unjust unless we can see that they have from the beginning created a situation where both sides would have to give in or go to extremes.
I never knew Churchill said that.
You’ve reminded me of the bizarre twist on suicide bombing that is Haganah hero Ari Ben Canaan (Paul Newman) in Exodus threatening to detonate an explosive laden boat killing himself and hundreds of jewish refugees.
A most peculiar morality at work there which I’ve never heard criticised..
The source for this Churchillism seems to be AJP Taylor ‘English History’ (in the very reputable Oxford History of England series) which I read with great enthusiasm when it first appeared in the 60s, p.492. Now I’ve mentioned it I’m becoming doubtful about it – Taylor gives no source and though he was supposed, for all his left-wing opinions, to have very good contacts in the Secret Services he was perhaps rather too imaginative. The quote seems rather popular on right wing blogs, which is never a good sign.
Still, I could still make the point that most readers of Taylor, thrilling to his story of the Finest Hour of the UK, read that Churchill wanted people to be ready to go to the most desperate extremes for kingdom and liberty and do not react immediately by thinking that the very idea is disgusting. They think, I guess, that that is how it might be in the moment when we are called upon to be heroes.
MHughes, if you look at the casualty rates for British pilots during ‘The Battle of Britain’, the quote is accurate in spirit, even if it were never uttered. The RAF was throwing the ‘cream’ of their youth, many barely trained, into the skies to sacrifice in defense of country.
link to en.wikipedia.org
There’s a reason why the sport of boxing has rules. The Old Testament is rampant in showing no rules of engagement. God himself is the worst offender. Over a period of time rules developed, from feudal ones down to Nuremberg, 1945. Asymetric warfare
has disregarded the “boxing rules.” Of course guerilla warfare is not really knew at all; the US revolutionary war forces did it. And so on. I find that questions regarding suicide bombers relates more to inbalance of physical (military) power that to ethical theory.
I think G-d has made it pretty clear, both by speech and deed, that he retired from the IDF over a thousand years ago.
Or maybe He is just picky, He didn’t stop the Holacaust because He was disgusted with Jews going so quietly to the camps. But once we Jews picked up guns and mortars and started really doing something for ourselves, well, He knew it was time to go back to duty!
The primary purpose for media discussion of the ‘suicide bomber’ meme is to tar Muslims as inherently irrational, murderous people. Suicide bombing is one tactic in an ugly war and is repugnant, but certainly not representative of Islam. As for the larger question of ‘analyzing’ the suicide bomber in the context of classifying Palestinians as terrorists, this is horse bleep. Many of the tactics Israelis whine on about now as evidence of the depravity of Palestinians were used by Zionists against Arabs and British forces for decades, and they were used for precisely the same reasons the Palestinians use them. Because they were facing a larger, better equipped force. For example, Zionist forces carried out a campaign of bombing public transportation services used by Arabs (42 attacks in a period in 1948 by my count on the map provided below), although, again, the bombing of a bus in Israel today is considered abhorrent to Jewish sensibilities.
link to lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com
Agreed on the suicide bomber “meme”.
I think it explains BSDNOW & yonira’s generic hasbara response and attempts to move the thread to a condemnation of suicide bombing, when in fact people here are more interested in understanding & discussing the phenomenon.
Well, now that we have him denouncing the bombing of civilians, does that mean we can get yonira to condemn Israel for its crimes against humanity? Or is that too much to hope for? Just another case of, “It’s only OK when Jews do it.”
Why BDSNOW kept repeating the same sentence over and over again? The answer is here:
link to docstoc.com
“The Israel Project 2009″ The Global Language Dictionary
Scroll down to page 7 paragraph 4.. you have the answer there..BDS is simply following a srcipt..