There is nothing "moral" about a suicide bomb. Nothing. They INTENTIONALLY target innocent civilians and are nothing more than attempts to intimidate and cause, well, "terror". Hence the term "terrorist".

To think there was anything moral in it would be to admit that if someone has a gripe with their own government or another government, even if legitimate, it would be okay to send a suicide bomber out to let everyone know how you feel.

Is that really where we want to go with this?

And I'm tired of hearing that insurgents are fighting us because we are occupying their country. Then they should put on a uniform and engage us in battle. No, they don't do that. In contravention of the Geneva Convention (that everyone would like us to sign, but which is pointless), they wear civilian clothes and engage our troops. They MURDER innocent civilians; they torture them.

And no, WE don't do that. Try watching "Charlie Wilson's War" or anything else about what the Russians did while in Afghanistan for 10 years. WE have never done such things. If a few bad apples got out of the basket, that's one thing. But the Russian tactics were SOP. I'm sure no one was ever prosecuted by the Russian government for the atrocities they committed. Not the same for US, is it?

Oh, and let's not go back 300 years and talk about that stuff. I know it happened, not proud of it, but that was THEN.

I'm talking about now. And I have a husband in the military who has been to Iraq and he told his troops under his command that he would not tolerate such things. That the Iraqi people were just like any of us, trying to get to work and take their children to school. HE recognized that. And I think most soldiers do. What many of the soldiers have done to help these people should make you proud of them, despite a few bad apples (who have been prosecuted).

And to think that anyone would think they would get a fairer shake as a prisoner of an insurgent or terrorist as opposed to the US government - ask Daniel Pearl that question. Oh, that's right, you can't because he got FUCKING BEHEADED and he was just a FUCKING JOURNALIST.

The fact that you liberals show sympathy for these people only means one thing: they will kill you LAST.

Good luck with that!

Do you feel that there has ever been a cause worth fighting for that pitted a poor, technologically weak group of people against a wealthy and technologically superior power? If so, would you disagree if I said that in many cases "[putting] on a uniform and [engaging] in battle" would lead to utter defeat for our hypothetical cause worth fighting for? I then ask, what are we left with? If the only legitimate way to engage in violence is to wear a uniform and engage in battle, and if in certain cases that approach spells certain ruin, you are left with an essentially Gandhian position in which even the most oppressed people are deemed immoral for rising up (Gandhi told the Jews to sacrifice themselves to the Nazis instead of fighting back). The path you leave such people with is to either fight in circumstances in which they have no chance of winning, or to not fight at all. You are either a sadist, urging masses of peoples to leap into death, as the African tribes did by the thousands as they fought against the British and their Maxim gun (the tribesmen wore their battle uniforms as they faced machine guns with spears, you would be happy to hear), or you are a pacifist for whom quiet suffering is the only morally defensible position.

Ladykrystyna,

By your standards then the French, Norwegian and Polish/Jewish resistance movements in WIII were all immoral terrorist organizations -- not to mention the colonial Minutemen (sorry to go back 230 years) -- because they didn't wear uniforms and didn't use the same tactics as their better armed opponents. So you're clearly on the Nazi's and King George III's sides in such conflicts. How can a Nazi and Imperial England sympathizer claim any moral high ground in any argument, huh?

So a suicide bomber knows he/she will take out a lot of innocents when they blow up. Are you trying to tell me that a US fly boy doesn't know he is going to kill some innocents when he drops a 2,000 lb depleted uranium bomb in the middle of Baghdad? Besides the contemporaneous deaths with the explosion, there is all the death, cancer and birth defects which will occur to people living there for the next several billion years. Depleted uranium is the gift that keeps giving. Why don't you try a hot, steaming cup of it yourself, you Nazi apologist?

And no, you're right. The US doesn't behead its enemies as far as I know, but we do beat the shit out of them to the point of killing them often. Seems beheading is a lot more humane than beating a person to death. You're probably OK also with the White House torture memos that said it would be OK to crush the testicles of a son of a terrorist in order to get "critical" information from said terrorist.

And as far as Daniel Pearl goes, he was likely killed by allies of the Mushariff government, which in turn is an ally of the US, because he was working on a story about Pakistan's rogue nuclear program.

Oh and I guess your hubby in the military has complete control over his troops at all times as well as all other US troops there, so US troops NEVER do anything bad there like raping, killing and burning 14 year olds and killing the rest of their families as well. You would have been a very good Nazi, but you make a piss-poor American.

And you claim we don't torture like the Soviets did in Afghanistan? What a crock of shit. Try reading a few news stories before you go spewing your Nazi malarkey.

Jacob Mogey:

Do you feel that there has ever been a cause worth fighting for that pitted a poor, technologically weak group of people against a wealthy and technologically superior power? If so, would you disagree if I said that in many cases "[putting] on a uniform and [engaging] in battle" would lead to utter defeat for our hypothetical cause worth fighting for? I then ask, what are we left with? If the only legitimate way to engage in violence is to wear a uniform and engage in battle, and if in certain cases that approach spells certain ruin, you are left with an essentially Gandhian position in which even the most oppressed people are deemed immoral for rising up (Gandhi told the Jews to sacrifice themselves to the Nazis instead of fighting back). The path you leave such people with is to either fight in circumstances in which they have no chance of winning, or to not fight at all. You are either a sadist, urging masses of peoples to leap into death, as the African tribes did by the thousands as they fought against the British and their Maxim gun (the tribesmen wore their battle uniforms as they faced machine guns with spears, you would be happy to hear), or you are a pacifist for whom quiet suffering is the only morally defensible position.

But the African tribes were fighting against oppression by imperialist Brits. And besides, that was, like how long ago.

Can we remain relevant to TODAY?

I'll take your bait though - here's what I think: If the insurgents or the poor technological weak group needs to fight the enemy and fighting him on traditional terms would not work, I would have more respect if they targeted the SOLDIERS of the enemy rather than going after its civilians. If the insurgents are targeting OUR military, fine, I say, even though they are technically breaking the Geneva Convention that everyone else wants us to sign. Yeah, because signing it really means anything anyway.

HOWEVER, if these same insurgents are suicide bombing their OWN COUNTRYMEN AND COUNTRYWOMEN AND CHILDREN, HOW DO YOU STAND BY AND SAY THIS IS OKAY? It's not okay for us, then it's not okay for them.

You can't have it both ways.

And I am hardly a pacifist. Nor am I a sadist. If you must fight your enemy (and I will not argue the definition of that word, even in the Iraq War context), then you fight the SOLDIERS not innocent civilians.

Does that clear it up for you any?

Um, no, those "resistance" groups were not terrorists in the same vein. Did they cut off the heads of innocent civilians to make a point? Or did they target ENEMY MILITARY sites?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

And thanks for the obligatory Nazi comment. Nice touch.

And US flyboys and US soldiers in general do not INTENTIONALLY TARGET CIVILIANS (notwithstanding the rogue units that have done so AND HAVE BEEN SUMMARILY INVESTIGATED AND PUNISHED). Suicide bombers do. So all the suicide bombers in Israel are doing a good thing then? Just wandering into an open shopping area and taking out 50 civilians. That's okay?

Your examples are FUCKING WORTHLESS!

Provide proof who killed Pearl. Will you feel the same way if it were someone in your family? Would you say sorry to the terrorist that somehow your country made them do it? What kind of stupid liberal bullshit is this?

Um, the example about my husband was at least meager proof that US SOLDIERS DO NOT ENGAGE IN SUCH TACTICS AS SOP, YOU FUCKING MORON! No, he does not have complete control. Does the government have complete control over you not murdering someone? No. Does that make the government bad? No.

The point was that this is not SOP for the US military and if you think it is than you have screw loose. Go vote for Obama or Hillary and dream about your leftist state (which, by the way is more fascist than anything McCain or any other conservative would create) where you can give in to the terrorists and watch them take over and then be happy in the thought that all of your sympathy only means they will kill you last, when there is no one left to protect you, not even the baby-killing Marines.

If the insurgents or the poor technological weak group needs to fight the enemy and fighting him on traditional terms would not work, I would have more respect if they targeted the SOLDIERS of the enemy rather than going after its civilians.

But why? If you kill someone off of the battlefield, when they are not armed or not with their battalion, what difference does it make whether they are a soldier in another life? This is how Arab terrorists justify killing Israeli civilians, by the way. As Israel drafts just about all of its citizens, in a sense every Israeli is a soldier, or a potential soldier. I'm not "standing by" any position, nor am I making any comments on what is or is not okay. I'm merely try to get you to articulate your position. If you accept that asymmetrical warfare is at times justified, where do you draw the line? What if exclusively targeting military forces is a losing strategy?

Look, I'm no military strategist, but if you are losing against a military, then you lose. Give up and stop fighting. Surrender.

If you are looking to me to say that it's okay for them to start targeting the civilian population, you will be waiting a long time. Take a seat and grab a smoke.

If the problem they have is with our GOVERNMENT (and most of the time war is between governments), then fight our military which is an extension of that government. That's what they are for, just like ambassadors are for negotiating certain things between countries.

But you don't target unarmed civilians, I don't care if the excuse is that every Israeli is a "soldier". That's another bullshit argument that doesn't hold water.

There is NO EXCUSE IN THIS WORLD TO TARGET UNARMED INNOCENT CIVILIANS. And I'm not talking about the collateral damage that happens all too often in war, even wars that may be considered just.

Look, war is ugly and I'm no war monger. In fact, it is often said that the person who likes war the least is the soldier because its his or her ass on the line. And since I know quite a few soldiers, I can attest to that at least in a general way.

But if we are attacked, I don't see why we should just sit there and let them beat the shit out of us. You may say that the terrorists don't have our capabilities. Well, I say "yet". And I say, why are we going to wait until they have a suitcase bomb or a real nuclear bomb parked in a major city before we do something? They've already proven that they can get to us and even with all the "security" we have, they can still get to us.

Now, some people may pick me apart about Bush and his cronies in Saudi Arabia, and oil company shit, yada yada yada.

Look, on 9/11 we were attacked. I don't give a shit about Bush, I don't give a shit about the fact that the Arabs have the oil we buy. All I know is, these people have been terrorizing their own people, the Israelis, us and numerous other folks around the globe for far too long. Perhaps 100 years ago they would seem just like a gnat that you could swat away.

But the fact is (and I remember Bush saying this was his reason for going into Iraq; I remember it so clearly) - this is not yesterday. There are WMDs out there and they can be got at for the right price. And if these people are not afraid to use suicide bombers, including babies and mentally ill women, then they would not be afraid to use WMDs on us or anyone else. The thought of those weapons in the hands of Saddam at that juncture was just unthinkable. Coupled with the fact that the man had been dicking us around for 12 years and the Russians, etc. were making money off the oil for food program.

I'm sorry, we were justified in going in. My only problem with the war is that we knew that shit was going to hit the fan once Saddam fell, and the leaders ignored it (especially Cheney) and screwed up the aftermath. Things would be a lot better off, I suppose, if we had a better plan. But we didn't.

These bastards need to be taken out and I don't give a shit how long it takes. If they can't sit down and have a rational discussion about how to bring about peace in their section of the world. If they insist on the destruction of Israel, etc., then I'm sorry, conversation is over. I'm tired of watching fucktards like Carter go over there and talk to these assholes. Carter got made an ass of (and believe me it's not that hard) by them.

I'm all for peace. If you don't fuck with me, we're fine. But if you fuck with me, I simply will not sit back and take it. I have a real hatred for bullies and terrorists are nothing more than bullies.

That's my position.

So, again, if they want to fight, then have them fight the military. But if they want to kill innocent civilians to make a point, I have nothing left to say to them and they deserve to be hunted down and killed. And believe me, these people are not fighting for "their country" the way Americans fought in the revolution or even during the Civil War. They are fighting so that they can continue a dictatorship with their mighty thumb on everybody. There was no democracy in Iraq when we got there. There was tyranny and 100,000 plus bodies courtesy of Hussein and Company to prove it. We are not their to stay and occupy like Britain in its imperialistic days. We were there to get the WMD, take out Saddam and hopefully leave something better in its place.

So these people are not fighting for their freedom. I don't see how anyone can equate those people with the American Revolution or some kind of fight for freedom. It's bullshit.

Hope that clears it up.

Look, I'm no military strategist, but if you are losing against a military, then you lose. Give up and stop fighting. Surrender.

Now, surely you can see what kind of points I might raise over this statement. Do I have to start listing the groups and causes throughout history that would have stood no chance fighting heads up against a vastly superior military, but that were yet considered legitimate by most people? Do you realize what kinds of people you are asking to "surrender" in this statement? Do you realize who this could apply to?

The rest of what you said is unrelated.

I don't understand the argument between you two because most of the suicide bombing does appear to be against military or political targets, and is thus compatible with both of your positions. It's true that far more civilians die than political or military, but that's just collateral damage.

For one, I'm implying that all violence that does not serve a security/defense goal is essentially the same. That is, if Al Qaeda bombs the Pentagon, it should not matter that the Pentagon is a military instillation because the attack served no specific military goal. I want somebody to tell me why there is this distinction between military and civilian targets. With terrorism, the attack itself is the goal, and the target is relevant only to the extent that it is symbolically important. The Pentagon may be chosen as a symbol, but so may the WTC.

You say get the uniform and fight, the American Indians did it and look where it got them.

Attila fougt the Romans the way you say and lost his brother, than changed his tactics and got him to Rome.

Every Rome sooner or later gets his Attila.

Anteo

John Mogey,

My point is that suicide bombing in Iraq does seem to be serving a specific military goal; either getting the US out or increasing the military/political power of a given group in Iraq. It's quite different from the 9/11 attacks or suicide bombings in Israel in that regard, where the symbol is far more important than the direct damage. Suicide bombing shouldn't automatically be considered terrorism just because terrorists use it; sometimes it's just an effective military technique.

ladykrystyna,

First off, you know when you have to resort to swearing, you've already lost your argument.

Second, you wrote: "And I'm tired of hearing that insurgents are fighting us because we are occupying their country. Then they should put on a uniform and engage us in battle. No, they don't do that. In contravention of the Geneva Convention (that everyone would like us to sign, but which is pointless), they wear civilian clothes and engage our troops."

And I pointed out ACCURATELY, that by this standard of yours all of the anti-Nazi resistance fighters would be terrorists -- and I have no doubt that is what Joseph Goebels called them. Instead of refuting my point -- which you can't, because it is impossible to honestly do so -- you had to say my point/example was "f@*king worthless" and that I am a "f&@king moron". Quite the rhetorical device to avoid addressing my dead-on points, and instead use potty language. Not.

And I got news for you, the fly boys know that they will likely be killing innocent civilians when they drop bombs on houses and in large urban areas. I don't care if it is intentional or not; they know the consequences of their actions, which are not all good and which generate more enemies for the US.

The fact that the ammunition used by the US is depleted uranium means that troops knowingly are sowing very toxic, carcinogenic and fairly radioactive material throughout Iraq, thereby causing eternal (well for several billion years anyway) gratuitous death, illness and birth defects for the Iraqis. And actually it will likely cause the same for your husband, you and any future children you have, as U-238 doesn't care if you have an American flag on your lapel.

My point in my previous post regarding your husband is that by your claiming your husband doesn't commit atrocities or let his soldiers commit them either, even it is in fact true, is only anecdotal evidence and certainly cannot be used to maintain that US soldiers and US mercenaries are not committing war crime atrocities.

You seem to be implying that you're a McCain supporter. Is that because he calls his wife a c&nt? Guess that is what you are used to, too, given your offensive level of vitriol against me.

Screaming ignorant pin-headed idiots like yourself are why this country is in the state it is in.

No, your point about resistance fighters and Nazis is pointless because you are then equating OUR soldiers, OUR country with being like Nazis. It's not the same thing. Resistance fighters were fighting against annhilation, against genocide. Insurgents are not. If there was any genocide going on in that country, that was under Saddam.

You seem to be equating ALL war and ALL killing with EVIL. And that's not true. Our soldiers dropped bombs in Dresden, too and more. Were they Nazis? Were they evil? The fact that you are not speaking Deustch and goose-stepping should make you feel grateful for when these men and women put their lives on the line. But I guess you would just convert to Islam and kiss up to them rather than fight them, right?

Well, other than Abu Gharaib and Haditha, I haven't heard too many other instances where American soldiers were flying helicopters over otherwise peaceful neighborhoods, knowing that the people would leave their hovels to flee and then make easy targets to pick off. Yeah, that's what the Russians did in Afghanistan, among other things. And that's a friggin' fact. Go look it up. So, unless and until, I hear that that is going on every day all day, I will not equate what our soldiers do with Nazis or Communists and what they did. Thank you very much. It's nothing but an insult to our soldiers to say such a thing. A few bad apples should not spoil the bunch.

I am not a supporter of anyone. I'm "decline to state" and think independently. I'm pro-choice, pro-gun, pro-gay marriage. You can't pigeonhole me that easily as a "right-wing pinhead". Shall I call you a "left-wing pinhead"? Shall we dispense with the Nazi name calling and discuss the situation rationally, or shall we just label people as "evil" and leave it at that?

You guys are the ones that can't seem to have a conversation about this without turning the Bush Admin or ouru soldiers into evil people. You can't just disagree. My mom disagrees with the war, but I've never seen her foam at the mouth because of it.

So, unless and until we can have a rational discussion about it that doesn't involve Nazis or Dick Cheney dressed up like Darth Vader, then I'm outta here.

Cheers.

ladykrystyna: you really need to study some history. It has been a long time since civilians became considered legitimate targets in war . Sadly, for us, it would not be unfair to claim that the US started this idea, with Sherman's March, justified with the same kind of arguments that Nazis, Brits, etc. make, and pretty much approved by the American public, at least those who think that the Civil War was justified. Later wars merely extended the practice. Something like a million Germans, certainly including a lot of anti-Nazis, were killed in the air campaign, which was certainly intended to "terrorize" the population , as the proponents put it'. Let's stop pretending that there are any "innocent" people in modern war, unless you mean that they had nothing to say about it in the first place. If we don't like it, we should do something about the political issues the "war" is about, and cut out all this macho stuff. disigny