Suicide bombers, a legitimate way of fighting? - Page 3




 
--
 
September 29th, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
One small technicality. Because they possess the banner/flag of Mohammed, only Turkey is capable of declaring an official Jihad. Not sure how workarounds are justified on this one.
September 30th, 2004  
A Can of Man
 
 
All's fair in love and war.
Illegalizing the enemy's tactics will only limit your own options.
Learn, adapt, defeat.
America has the world's most sophisticated weapons.
They got people who blow up.
September 30th, 2004  
Chocobo_Blitzer
 
lol, note I didn't "Illegalize" their "tactics", you notice I was mainly talking about the suicide bombers killing random Israelis.

As the Russian front has proven, doing some suicidal things can work, LOL
--
September 30th, 2004  
sunb!
 
 

Topic: Gasoline on the fire


We all agree on the fact that killing civilian people is a crime of war, right?

I throw some gasonline on the fire and ask what if the civilian people carry guns for their own protection? Sherman wrote in his post on this topic that some of the settlers (could carry) carried guns. I believe they do this for their own protection and the protection of their homes, families and friends - they have the right to do so - but this make them combatants and a legal target for a suicide bomber?!

The last statement is not my opinion, it is more a question generated from the posts on the topic - hope you understand.

Suicide bombers fail to target military installations these days; once in a while we hear in the news that a suicide bomber killed a couple of soldiers or police officers - but in ie 90 percent of the time innocent people are being killed.

The martyr status is important for the bomber and the people behind; it somehow validate the sacrifice of the life of a young man. As some guys posted things works the opposite of the people being put on target.
In the end suicide bombers, the uncertainty and horror makes an evil spiral of violence which unfortunately is to hard to exit. Perhaps from this the Middle East conflict is a bit easier to understand.

Thanks for your posts and replies, most appriciated!
September 30th, 2004  
SHERMAN
 
 
Well, the civilians carrying weapons is a problem....The armed-settlers are probably legitimate targets....But the Suicide bombers usually attack inside Israel, not in the territories....
September 30th, 2004  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chocobo_Blitzer
Well, jihad is okay when it is defending their land from invaders, to the muslims, the Jews are on their land. And Iraq, the US are on their land. Suicide is a sin, but, sense the sacrifice is for jihad, the sin is cleansed and you're good to go.

It is a perverse manipulation of the ancient texts.
Therein lies the problem. I believe that some Imans manipulate the teachings of the Koran for their own personal and political agendas. It might be one reason for the proliferation of so many separate muslim sects. I don't have a great deal of knowledge about the Koran but does it really say that Jihad martyrs will go to paradise and be able to sleep with 75 virgins or how many it is?

Back to the topic - I also firmly believe that suicide attacks against non legitimate military targets or non combatants is murder, plain and simple. A civilian armed with a gun for self protection is a non combatant. He is not a member of any military or para-military organization (in most cases). He is a private individual. It's like saying that someone armed with a knife or even martial arts skills for self defence is a combatant.
September 30th, 2004  
A Can of Man
 
 
Well I meant in general. The West tries to "Illegalize" the enemy's tactics which I think is stupid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chocobo_Blitzer
lol, note I didn't "Illegalize" their "tactics", you notice I was mainly talking about the suicide bombers killing random Israelis.

As the Russian front has proven, doing some suicidal things can work, LOL
September 30th, 2004  
SHERMAN
 
 
Quote:
He is not a member of any military or para-military organization (in most cases). He is a private individual. It's like saying that someone armed with a knife or even martial arts skills for self defence is a combatant.
Yes, but any palestinian will tell you that these settlers are also IDF reservists(like all men 23-45 in Israel).....
September 30th, 2004  
Doc.S
 
Can I be honest over here

I think I need a moderator to look what I would answer on this Question befor I send a answer. I dont want to be kicked out from this fine forum.
But I am honest and I really liked to answer on this post but then I cant be honest I belive? But it burns when I cant answer.... Any help would be greatful and I dont want to lie about what I really think. It is against my faith to lie when in comes to this issue.




Cheers:
Doc.S

September 30th, 2004  
Eric
 
The initial question was about the legitimacy of the action.
According to the most commonly accepted and widely agreed upon "laws of war", the Geneva convention is pretty clear about it:

Killing, harming, targeting non combattants is a crime (art3)

You are a combattant no matter the weapon you use if you follow some "rules of war", dress code... (art4)
If you don't follow these rules, you cannot be a POW and deny yourself the protection of the convention.
That said, the Kamikazes were legitimate combattants but your typical suicide bomber is not!

Suicide bombing can be a legitimate act of war!

Art. 3.
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, color, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

Article 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms [b]openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.