Are guerilla/suicide bombings ever justified?

[Racing Truth]

Given today's events in Damascus, (http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/18/latest-updates-on-the-war-in-syria/) it's an interesting question.

95% of the time, it's a definite "no." But what about true liberation movements? And should we in the West look at differently just b/c it might benefit us?

NOTE: It's not clear yet if this was a remote-detonated bomb or suicide bomb.

[SurfaceUnits]

the aggressor in the conflict sets the rules.
having your neighborhoods blown up opens up a lot of options

Isn't nice that Syria has chemical weps

[nrc]

If the target is a legitimate military target - key military leaders in this case - does it matter if the explosive is in a bomb belt or a JDAM?

[Easy]

One man's liberator is another man's terrorist. i'm not sure there is a final answer.

[nrc]

One man's liberator is another man's terrorist. i'm not sure there is a final answer.

Sometimes a terrorist is just a terrorist. Bombing a busload of Israeli tourists, for example, is not going to liberate anyone.

[cameraman]

If the target is a legitimate military target - key military leaders in this case - does it matter if the explosive is in a bomb belt or a JDAM?

It does to the person tasked with delivering the ordinance...

[G.]

the aggressor in the conflict sets the rules.

The defense against such tactics can be nasty to the innocents.

If the world understood that, then it might take some of the power away from the tactic.

If your side is using suicide bombers (especially against civilians), then you shouldn't expect global sympathy for heavy-handed response, w.r.t. checkpoints, building demolition, midnight arrest and detainment, etc.





But in war, whether organized militaries or not, both sides are *******s.

[NismoZ]

May not liberate anyone by killing Israeli school kids but my guess is the reply from Israel will liberate a number of Iranians from all of their earthly worries. Probably more than six. Won't be a tour bus either but whatever it is the UN will likely ask for serious sanctions on the "aggressor state." Probably be as effective as their efforts in Syria.

[Methanolandbrats]

The party that is outgunned (manpower or weapons) resorts to whatever it can. Whether it is justified is a value judgment. Been that way thoughout the history of warfare. Examples are Huns vs Romans, American Revolution, etc....

[NismoZ]

And the biggest *******s win? I can hardly wait for the attempt to block Hormuz. I think that fits "the aggressor" definition. Should we NOT react? Maybe we should wait for the UN or the French to lead the way? Pretty sure we didn't target military-only facilities in Tokyo, Berlin or Hamburg either but then if Pearl Harbor hadn't happened I doubt those 100s of thousands of innocents would have been incinerated. Sad, but overpowering strength, ability and resolve will almost always be an advantage to any *******s involved in war. Hate that, but I'd rather MY *******s have it than THEIR *******s!

[datachicane]

The party that is outgunned (manpower or weapons) resorts to whatever it can. Whether it is justified is a value judgment. Been that way thoughout the history of warfare. Examples are Huns vs Romans, American Revolution, etc....


+1

[cameraman]

I can hardly wait for the attempt to block Hormuz.

There is a reason that the UAE just built a pipeline that bypasses the Straits of Hormuz...

[Gnam]

see also:

Occupied France
Battle of Yavin
Red Dawn

Some countries feel remorse over killing civilians, women, and children. Some don't. But, they all do it, if it serves their interests.

[datachicane]

Yep.

Think of all the civilians- plumbers, electricians, drywallers, HVAC techs, food services, etc., etc.- that went down with this one.

http://popdose.com/wp-content/uploads/DeathStar-299x300.jpg

Tactics are tactics. When it suits us we criticize the tactics of our enemies, although we'd likely do much the same were the tables turned.

[cameraman]

see also:

Battle of Yavin

I had to look that one up:gomer:

[Indy]

This has not been a real argument since the debut of total war, originating in the U.S. with Sherman terrorizing the civilian South, and followed many times (Hiroshima, Dresden, etc.). Only propagandists argue that some aspect of war is not legitimate or not fair.

Good example: "cowardly terrorists" giving their lives flying planes into American buildings = despicable, brave American troops in air conditioned offices in the U.S. using drones to bomb Afghan villagers = heroes.

It's all ********. It's all ****ing evil, and anything goes. All's fair, right?

[Rex Karz]

If someone gets on a bus full of soldiers and civilians and sets off a bomb, is it an act of terror or a legitimate act of war?

What if the bomber was Jewish and this took place in Germany in 1943?

I wish I knew the answer.

[cameraman]

You're in the French resistance and you know if you blow up this train the Germans will go into town and line up 60 random folks and shoot them. You do it anyway. So do the Germans. Were you right?

[nrc]

This has not been a real argument since the debut of total war, originating in the U.S. with Sherman terrorizing the civilian South, and followed many times (Hiroshima, Dresden, etc.). Only propagandists argue that some aspect of war is not legitimate or not fair.

Good example: "cowardly terrorists" giving their lives flying planes into American buildings = despicable, brave American troops in air conditioned offices in the U.S. using drones to bomb Afghan villagers = heroes.

Sherman's March was a brilliant feat of military strategy and tactics which just happened to have the side benefit of striking fear into the heart of the south. Sherman understood the importance of supply logistics and the tactics of maneuver better than any officer of his period and he used that to fatally cripple the south. Actual damage done just for the sake of terror is more legend than reality.

Call me a propagandist, but I do believe that there's a world of difference between deliberately targeting civilians and accepting that when you attack legitimate military targets there may be civilian casualties.

[G.]

This has not been a real argument since the debut of total war, originating in the U.S.


That was the Greeks, I believe.

[Indy]

That was the Greeks, I believe.

Poorly written sentence. I meant, it originated in the U.S. with...

[Indy]

Call me a propagandist, but I do believe that there's a world of difference between deliberately targeting civilians and accepting that when you attack legitimate military targets there may be civilian casualties.

IMO pretending some targets are legitimate is self-delusion. It's all evil, it's all murder, it's all destruction. I am not saying it isn't sometimes necessary, but let's not fool ourselves and pretend that we are not biased in our judgments.

[Rex Karz]

If civilians are the workers in the plants that make the materials for war, does that not make the workers legitimate targets? An army, of course, marches on its stomach so when Sherman laid waste on his march to the sea, wasn't food a legitimate target too?

The problem is that the lines between "civilian" and "military" have become so blurred and ill-defined in times of war. This is not the era of Napolean, the Civil War, or even World War I where there were clearly defined lines of battle. This is an era where one of the nuclear powers (or a terrorist group) could launch a nuclear strike against another country and, assuming the ability of the target country to launch a counter strike is crippled (a big if), a handful of nuclear bombs would destroy the targeted country. Think of this country if Washington, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and maybe a couple other cities/targets were vaporized. Is not the object of war to destroy your enemy? And if you destroy your enemy, do you not win the war. And isn't winning the war the goal?

We humans are very clever and creative when it comes to creating new ways to kill our fellow homo sapiens. We can talk all we want about "collateral damage" or about how wrong it is to target civlians. But the reality is that's the way war is these days. We may not like it, we may view it as immoral and wrong, but the proverbial horse has left the barn.

Perhaps the better angels of our nature will come to the front some day, as there is a general worldwide rejection in the use of biological or chemical agents (with some exceptions, of course). But I remain pessimistic. War will always be around, I suspect and fear.

[SurfaceUnits]

I had seen nothing sacred, and the things that were glorious had no glory and the sacrifices were like the stockyards at Chicago if nothing was done with the meat except to bury it…. Abstract words such as glory, honor, courage, or hallow were obscene. E. Hemmingway

[SurfaceUnits]

The problem is that the lines between "civilian" and "military" have become so blurred and ill-defined in times of war. This is not the era of Napolean, the Civil War, or even World War I where there were clearly defined lines of battle. This is an era where one of the nuclear powers (or a terrorist group) could launch a nuclear strike against another country and, assuming the ability of the target country to launch a counter strike is crippled (a big if), a handful of nuclear bombs would destroy the targeted country. Think of this country if Washington, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and maybe a couple other cities/targets were vaporized. Is not the object of war to destroy your enemy? And if you destroy your enemy, do you not win the war. And isn't winning the war the goal?


I bet you just went on Janet Napolitano's watch list with that list

[Insomniac]

I agree with M&B. They are using everything they can to fight. We may not agree whether their fight is legitimate. If they had missiles and stealth bombers, they'd use those instead. (Which is why we don't want any of our aggressors to have advanced weapons, because they'll use them.)

[datachicane]

I had seen nothing sacred, and the things that were glorious had no glory and the sacrifices were like the stockyards at Chicago if nothing was done with the meat except to bury it…. Abstract words such as glory, honor, courage, or hallow were obscene. E. Hemmingway

+1

[Indy]

I had seen nothing sacred, and the things that were glorious had no glory and the sacrifices were like the stockyards at Chicago if nothing was done with the meat except to bury it…. Abstract words such as glory, honor, courage, or hallow were obscene. E. Hemmingway

:thumbup: