Suicide Bombers.. Not Crazy

[Zanchief]

I think some of you guys need to look up the word Coward. Suicide bombers are a lot of things, but cowards they are not.

[Wrath Child]

Suicide bombers are just plain old cowards. If they truly believed Allah was on their side, they would fight the US out in the open. Certainly the US military isn't more powerful than Allah, is it?

That's a retarded statment. By this defenition all the people that ever used underground armed resistance are cowards. Resistance fighters throughout europe and in Russia during WW2 should have came out in the open and fought Nazi army instead of blowing up bridges and pisoning water supplies by your defenition of war.

Beliteling your enemy is sure way to lose war. Muslim suicide bombers are not cowards or idiots, but strong, inteligent enemy, who found a tactic that works for his advantage and uses it.

I don't recall WW2 resistance fighters proclaiming their god is more powerful than their enemy and will protect them and give them 20 virgin boys to play with in heaven.

Intentionally blowing up innocent children is nothing but cowardly.

[Wrath Child]

America was FOUNDED by people who would likely have been considered terrorists today. Look at the continental army, at least early on. They didn't fight by the standard rules of war, they snuck around through forests and sniped the crap out of the british. We ourselves won our national independence through what started out as a guerilla war.

Also, fanaticism and willingness to die for an ideal is hardly unique to suicide bombers. Was it not Patrick Henry who said, "Give me Liberty or give me Death"? Oh yeah, he's a complete nobody, right?

I'm not in any way condoning terrorist acts going after civilians, but to label those who do it as insane or crazed is very short-sighted and completely inaccurate. Also, isn't much of the activity of the insurgents in Iraq going after military targets? Would you cease to call them cowards if they only targeted US military or Iraqi military/police/government officials?

-Arlos

They're not crazed or insane. They're just religious wackos of the highest order.

[Ganzo]

Suicide bombers are just plain old cowards. If they truly believed Allah was on their side, they would fight the US out in the open. Certainly the US military isn't more powerful than Allah, is it?

That's a retarded statment. By this defenition all the people that ever used underground armed resistance are cowards. Resistance fighters throughout europe and in Russia during WW2 should have came out in the open and fought Nazi army instead of blowing up bridges and pisoning water supplies by your defenition of war.

Beliteling your enemy is sure way to lose war. Muslim suicide bombers are not cowards or idiots, but strong, inteligent enemy, who found a tactic that works for his advantage and uses it.

I don't recall WW2 resistance fighters proclaiming their god is more powerful than their enemy and will protect them and give them 20 virgin boys to play with in heaven.

Intentionally blowing up innocent children is nothing but cowardly.

I don't even know how to respond to this

And Zan hit it on the head, issue i have is people calling terrorist cowards or idiots cause they are nether

[xaoshaen]

I don't even know how to respond to this

And Zan hit it on the head, issue i have is people calling terrorist cowards or idiots cause they are nether

I beg to differ. See my previous posts in this thread.

[Harrison]

I don't understand how killing innocent civilians who are incapable of fighting back to an armed terrorist (whether that be strapped to a bomb, or otherwise) is anything other than cowardly.

I think you people are just twisted in the head if you think killing women and children is anything other than cowardly. Your morals are fucked.

[Ganzo]

coward : One who shows ignoble fear in the face of danger or pain.

cowardly :Exhibiting the characteristics of a coward, particularly ignoble fear: a cowardly surrender.

[Gidan]

I don't understand how killing innocent civilians who are incapable of fighting back to an armed terrorist (whether that be strapped to a bomb, or otherwise) is anything other than cowardly.

I think you people are just twisted in the head if you think killing women and children is anything other than cowardly. Your morals are fucked.

Then the US acted cowardly in WW2 in your view.

[Narrock]

I don't understand how killing innocent civilians who are incapable of fighting back to an armed terrorist (whether that be strapped to a bomb, or otherwise) is anything other than cowardly.

I think you people are just twisted in the head if you think killing women and children is anything other than cowardly. Your morals are fucked.

Then the US acted cowardly in WW2 in your view.

There's a big difference between the intentional killing of women and children, and the unfortunate side-effect of war, called collateral damage.

[Harrison]

Do you people personally send your every paycheck to fucking terrorist training camps or some shit?

I swear to fucking God you people love them more than your own neighbors.

[Gidan]

I don't understand how killing innocent civilians who are incapable of fighting back to an armed terrorist (whether that be strapped to a bomb, or otherwise) is anything other than cowardly.

I think you people are just twisted in the head if you think killing women and children is anything other than cowardly. Your morals are fucked.

Then the US acted cowardly in WW2 in your view.

There's a big difference between the intentional killing of women and children, and the unfortunate side-effect of war, called collateral damage.

So all the innocent killed in the bombing of Japan was accidental. Thats a whole lot of collateral damage.

[Gidan]

Do you people personally send your every paycheck to fucking terrorist training camps or some shit?

I swear to fucking God you people love them more than your own neighbors.

A person can say that suside bombings are not cowardly and still not like them and want them to stop. The 2 things have abasulty nothing to do with each other.

[Harrison]

KILLING PEOPLE THAT DONT FIGHT BACK IS COWARDLY

It's really simple. I mean since you've consistently incorrectly spelled suicide in your every post. I guess I can't hold you responsible to understand this concept either.

Suside bombers are people who give their lives for a cause, you may not believe in their cause but that doesn't matter.

The fighters for their side are willing to give their lives for that cause, some do it in suside bombings.

If you think suside bombing isn't doing its job.

A person can say that suside bombings are not cowardly and still not like them and want them to stop.

Seriously though, suside should not be illegal (as in attempted murder).

This is where susice really sucks. When people commit suside, theur family and friends always seem to look back and say "Where did I go wrong" when it many cases you never went wrong.

I rest my case.

Until you are capable of spelling the very word we are discussing and debating about please?

[Gidan]

KILLING PEOPLE THAT DONT FIGHT BACK IS COWARDLY

The I will ask again, do you think the US acted cowardly in WW2 when we bombed Japan?

As for the spelling, I really dont care. I dont have time to run every post through a spell checker and I will admit my spelling sucks. I am willing to bet you make some very stupid math errors I wouldn't make. Does that mean you shouldn't speak up when it comes to science topics?

[Arlos]

Or bombed Germany. See: Dresden and the Firestorm, where, if I remember right, more civilians (yes, including women and children) died than in either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Of course, Dresden was a joint effort between the US and the UK, and it took an entire day (24 hours almost) of constant bombing to create the effect. Hiroshima & Nagasaki took 1 plane and 1 bomb.

-Arlos

(PS, yes, I know there are holes in this argument, lets see if people know them)

[Ganzo]

KILLING PEOPLE THAT DONT FIGHT BACK IS COWARDLY

coward : One who shows ignoble fear in the face of danger or pain.

cowardly :Exhibiting the characteristics of a coward, particularly ignoble fear: a cowardly surrender.

I agree that killing innocent is wrong, but claiming that terrorist do it out of fear of our millitary is retarded

[Harrison]

Then why don't they attack military targets?

I think it's safe to say they are AFRAID of going after targets that *GASP*


SHOOT FUCKING BACK AT THEM

[Lyion]

Or bombed Germany. See: Dresden and the Firestorm, where, if I remember right, more civilians (yes, including women and children) died than in either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Of course, Dresden was a joint effort between the US and the UK, and it took an entire day (24 hours almost) of constant bombing to create the effect. Hiroshima & Nagasaki took 1 plane and 1 bomb.

-Arlos

(PS, yes, I know there are holes in this argument, lets see if people know them)

Not gonna do it. Wouldn't be prudent at this junction. I'll give Xao a chance to break out his thesaurus to refute your post.

Besides, shouldn't you be down at Crawford with Moore inciting CNN to cover your year old changing stories about moms, or working with NARAL to push bold faced lies about John Roberts, Arlos?

[The Kizzy]

Arlos, if it matters, I e-heart you.

[Zanchief]

Then why don't they attack military targets?

I think it's safe to say they are AFRAID of going after targets that *GASP*


SHOOT FUCKING BACK AT THEM

Yea, maybe then they would die~

[Lyion]

In war the object, despite our cries for humanity or civility, is to win. Do you win by attacking someone where they are strongest? no.

The insurgents are continuing to engage and fight against overwhelming odds and primarily to do the most damage to a free society, via the press and PR brigade.

Killing people who do not fight back in warfare is not only smart, it's better for your cause than sacrificing your people for no gain, PR or damage wise.

Welcome to the wars of the 20th century. These wars, however brutal, are still a tad better than thermonuclear ones.

[Arlos]

Yea, maybe then they would die~

Exactly. These people have ALREADY decided that they're goign to die, willingly. Why then would they be AFRAID of dying, albeit to a different source? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. In all actuality, they have calculated reasons for going after civilian targets.

-Arlos

[xaoshaen]

Or bombed Germany. See: Dresden and the Firestorm, where, if I remember right, more civilians (yes, including women and children) died than in either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Of course, Dresden was a joint effort between the US and the UK, and it took an entire day (24 hours almost) of constant bombing to create the effect. Hiroshima & Nagasaki took 1 plane and 1 bomb.

-Arlos

(PS, yes, I know there are holes in this argument, lets see if people know them)

No thesaurus necessary: why did the Allies bomb Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki?

For the record, the fatalities from either atomic weapon were dwarfed by the fatalities from conventional attacks in any number of cities: Dresden, Tokyo, Berlin, et cetera.

[xaoshaen]

In war the object, despite our cries for humanity or civility, is to win. Do you win by attacking someone where they are strongest? no.

The insurgents are continuing to engage and fight against overwhelming odds and primarily to do the most damage to a free society, via the press and PR brigade.

Killing people who do not fight back in warfare is not only smart, it's better for your cause than sacrificing your people for no gain, PR or damage wise.

Welcome to the wars of the 20th century. These wars, however brutal, are still a tad better than thermonuclear ones.

Name one single time that terrorist tactics have coerced a free society into cooperation with the perpetrator's goals. Deliberately targeting civilians is counterproductive, especially when you're attempting to wage a guerilla campaign.

[xaoshaen]

Exactly. These people have ALREADY decided that they're goign to die, willingly. Why then would they be AFRAID of dying, albeit to a different source? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. In all actuality, they have calculated reasons for going after civilian targets.
-Arlos

Who are "these people"? The individuals picking the targets are almost never the ones sacrificing themselves for the cause.