WP: Iranian Unit to Be Labeled 'Terrorist'

[Larry]

Um, honest question, folks:

Just what is it about suicide bombers that has so many people claiming that this is somehow an unethical weapon or tactic or something?

I get the impression that a lot of folks are firmly convinced that, well, blowing up a sidewalk cafe with a car bomb or a grenade is one thing, but a suicide bomber, well, that's just too dirty a weapon, and any "side" who'd do that is automatically The Bad Guy.

To me, the only difference between a suicide bomber and a non-suicide bomber, is that the former requires a volunteer who cares so deeply about whatever cause he's using to die for it. (Whereas the non-suicide bomber simply requires somebody who's willing to kill someone else.)

What makes suicide bombing somehow morally worse than any other terrorism?

[PeterMP]

Um, honest question, folks:

Just what is it about suicide bombers that has so many people claiming that this is somehow an unethical weapon or tactic or something?

I get the impression that a lot of folks are firmly convinced that, well, blowing up a sidewalk cafe with a car bomb or a grenade is one thing, but a suicide bomber, well, that's just too dirty a weapon, and any "side" who'd do that is automatically The Bad Guy.

To me, the only difference between a suicide bomber and a non-suicide bomber, is that the former requires a volunteer who cares so deeply about whatever cause he's using to die for it. (Whereas the non-suicide bomber simply requires somebody who's willing to kill someone else.)

What makes suicide bombing somehow morally worse than any other terrorism?

If you the objectives are the same, I don't think there is much of a difference. If the people that bombed the WTC site using the truck had been suiciders (i.e. stayed w/ the truck), I wouldn't think the act was better or worse by much.

[twa]

Um, honest question, folks:

Just what is it about suicide bombers that has so many people claiming that this is somehow an unethical weapon or tactic or something?

What makes suicide bombing somehow morally worse than any other terrorism?

If it is targeting a military target,troops ,supply line ect.it is one thing.

Targeting civilians is whole nuther matter.

The latest major bombings in Iraq are a good example.

It is not the weapon but the targeting of innocents.

The suicide bomber is just the favored method and sometimes doesn't even now they are one,till it's too late.

Of course NONE of us are truly innocent anyway...so I guess it's all good.

[ATV]

Great. Yea, sure, we gotta make sure nobody stands in our way of "bringing democracy" to their countries. How dare they try to repel our totally legal invasion and occupying forces. How did our oil get beneath their lands, anyhow?

[TradeTheBeal!]

mboyd, WTF does Israel have to do with this.

You're joking, right?

[Chief skin]

NEWS FLASH THE IRG ARE TERRORISTS, so what is the lame duck draft dodger going to do about it

[TradeTheBeal!]

Um, honest question, folks:

Just what is it about suicide bombers that has so many people claiming that this is somehow an unethical weapon or tactic or something?

What makes suicide bombing somehow morally worse than any other warfare ?

There is no real difference. Bombs are bombs, soldiers are soldiers, casualties are casualties, etc. Anyone who posits differently is just a salesman.

The idea, of course, is to portray the Islamic "patriot" as a suicidal, blood-thirsty, extremist walking bomb. As opposed to the heroic, god-fearing good-guy who drops his bombs from 12000 feet. Either way the payload is delivered and neither is the wiser.

[Bang]

There is no real difference. Bombs are bombs, soldiers are soldiers, casualties are casualties, etc. Anyone who posits differently is just a salesman.

The idea, of course, is to portray the Islamic "patriot" as a suicidal, blood-thirsty, extremist walking bomb. As opposed to the heroic, god-fearing good-guy who drops his bombs from 12000 feet. Either way the payload is delivered and neither is the wiser.

the difference is the man dropping them from 12,000 feet has targets of some military significance, and he also has guidance systems that will all but assure he will hit what he aims at.

This isn't 1944 anymore and we don't need to carpet bomb to hit what we want.

Conversely, a suicide car bomber indiscriminately kills anyone near his weapon with no regard to their strategic or tactical significance.

While the payload may still be delivered, we try to deliver where it is supposed to go to target the enemy. Their payload is delivered to any poor sap who happens to be there, be it combatant, woman, or child. And that is their strategy. That is their goal. To kill innocents. To make them afraid. If it wasn't, they'd try to hit military targets instead of crowded markets.

Whether you'd like to sarcastically call the guy in the plane a 'god-fearing good guy' is your business, but to deny the decades of indiscriminate murder that the extremists have perpetrated is to be totally and completely ignorant.

There are clear differences in how each side pursues this war, and you'd have to be blind to think they are similar.

~Bang

[TradeTheBeal!]

the difference is the man dropping them from 12,000 feet has targets of some military significance, and he also has guidance systems that will all but assure he will hit what he aims at.

This isn't 1944 anymore and we don't need to carpet bomb to hit what we want.

Conversely, a suicide car bomber indiscriminately kills anyone near his weapon with no regard to their strategic or tactical significance.

While the payload may still be delivered, we try to deliver where it is supposed to go to target the enemy. Their payload is delivered to any poor sap who happens to be there, be it combatant, woman, or child. And that is their strategy. That is their goal. To kill innocents. To make them afraid. If it wasn't, they'd try to hit military targets instead of crowded markets.

Whether you'd like to sarcastically call the guy in the plane a 'god-fearing good guy' is your business, but to deny the decades of indiscriminate murder that the extremists have perpetrated is to be totally and completely ignorant.

There are clear differences in how each side pursues this war, and you'd have to be blind to think they are similar.

~Bang

Bang, you are stellar member of this forum and, I suspect, an individual in possession of formidable intellect. Everything that you have posted, except for the "blind" stuff, is a fully defendable and reasonable position.

However, we have been down this road before. I do not recognize your asserted moral "high ground", nor ever will I. For you, some are victims of murder and others are victims of righteous vengeance. For me, they are all victims.

Anyway, it's all happening 5000+ miles away, so what's all the fuss about? I still get .99c tacos, $2 PBRs, and free Skins tix every minute of every day. Best of all, I am in no danger of supporting that which I claim to despise. You, I suspect, are not as prescient.

[Bang]

Bang, you are stellar member of this forum and, I suspect, an individual in possession of formidable intellect. Everything that you have posted, except for the "blind" stuff, is a fully defendable and reasonable position.

However, we have been down this road before. I do not recognize your asserted moral "high ground", nor ever will I. For you, some are victims of murder and others are victims of righteous vengeance. For me, they are all victims.

Anyway, it's all happening 5000+ miles away, so what's all the fuss about? I still get .99c tacos, $2 PBRs, and free Skins tix every minute of every day. Best of all, I am in no danger of supporting that which I claim to despise. You, I suspect, are not as prescient.

well, i apologize if I came off as a bit harsh, not my intent.

I don't want to sound as if i believe I hold some moral high ground, I just think there's clear and obvious differences between our forces and their methods.

I'm not about righteous vengeance, maybe 6 years ago, but that time has passed. Things have changed, and the one thing that continues to stick out in my mind is how many Iraqis seem to really want to have an opportunity to control their own lives without the fear of these fundamentalist despots. One recurring theme i keep hearing from those who have been there (regardless of their politics) is that the Iraqi people, the rank and file, they want us there. They want us to protect them while they get to their feet.

Meanwhile our enemy wants to terrorize them into subjugation by indiscriminately killing anyone who happens by.

I think some causes are just, and I believe that this one is.

In truth, I think we've shown a lot of restraint in our pursuance of this war. We've tried very hard to separate actual combatants from civilians, and sometimes that caution has cost us lives and certainly slowed the process down. I think a lot of American politicians have demonized our efforts for their own gain, and that's sad. As you said in another post this morning, lots of sheep follow simply out of a lack of any opinion of their own. I think this political posturing has also cost lives, and I think the divisions it has put into us as a people can be disastrous.

On the other hand, some criticism is warranted, Bush and his cronies have botched this war by trying to do it on the cheap. Their strategies were sorely lacking and their planning basically didn't exist beyond the first 5 days.

But, I don't think that means we should give up. I think it means we should adjust and correct the errors, and try to win this battle as quickly and as cleanly as possible.

Bush administration aside, I think Americans in general as a group have a strong moral compass when it comes to these kinds of things. I don't think we're acting empirically, for example. I'd be very disappointed and disenfranchised if we were just going about setting up puppets.

As far as Iran goes, maybe I'm remembering this wrong, but during the Clinton administration the opening bits of olive branch dialogue were flowing between Washington and Tehran. Then the hardliners pushed Ahmadinijad into office, and things have spiraled downhill ever since.

~Bang

[Sarge]

There is no real difference. Bombs are bombs, soldiers are soldiers, casualties are casualties, etc. Anyone who posits differently is just a salesman.

The idea, of course, is to portray the Islamic "patriot" as a suicidal, blood-thirsty, extremist walking bomb. As opposed to the heroic, god-fearing good-guy who drops his bombs from 12000 feet. Either way the payload is delivered and neither is the wiser.

Exhibit A of what's wrong with the left.

No moral compass.

Equal footing for people who defend our country and way of life, and people that blow up schoolbus's full of kids

[AsburySkinsFan]

Exhibit A of what's wrong with the left.

No moral compass.

Exhibt B of what's wrong with the right.

Hypocrisy.

Complaining about Iran supporting terrorists, while the US is supporting them as well. :doh:

[Larry]

Exhibit A of what's wrong with the left.

No moral compass.

Equal footing for people who defend our country and way of life, and people that blow up schoolbus's full of kids

No, what he said was equal moral footing for all bombs.

No one's debating whether targeting soldiers = targeting civilians. My question (and his answer) involved the question "Is there any difference, morally, between blowing yourself up, and setting a timer and walking away?"

[twa]

Perhaps some pressure is being felt by the Mullahs.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070816120437.7r5rby47&show_article=1

[Bang]

No, what he said was equal moral footing for all bombs.

No one's debating whether targeting soldiers = targeting civilians. My question (and his answer) involved the question "Is there any difference, morally, between blowing yourself up, and setting a timer and walking away?"

No, i don't think so. Maybe the first sentence actually addressing the bombs themselves, but then this

"the idea, of course, is to portray the Islamic "patriot" as a suicidal, blood-thirsty, extremist walking bomb. As opposed to the heroic, god-fearing good-guy who drops his bombs from 12000 feet. Either way the payload is delivered and neither is the wiser."

immediately moves the response to the realm of the bombER.

The bombs themselves may be the same in terms of destructive result, but their methods of delivery are entirely different, as is their intended target and their usual outcome. Our bombers do not intentionally target innocent civilians. Their bombers do, and quite often ONLY target civilians.

I think the differences between the two are vast.

~Bang

[Air Force Cane]

Just got off an interview with a senior General in Iraq. The Iranians are trying desperately to bring in troops, arms, and money through Wasit Province to kill us in Northern Iraq. Every day we capture their men and their rockets, RPG, missiles and literature.

Time to send those weapons back into Iran..

The Quds force has three main areas of interest:

1. Hizballah operations in Lebanon
   
2. Iraqi Kurdistan
   
3. Kashmir, the Balouch and Afghanistan
   

In the past the Quds force has also supported the establishment of Hizballah branches in Jordan and Palestine.

[Corcaigh]

Just got off an interview with a senior General in Iraq. The Iranians are trying desperately to bring in troops, arms, and money through Wasit Province to kill us in Northern Iraq. Every day we capture their men and their rockets, RPG, missiles and literature.

Why don't we hold a press conference every day, showing these items. If we did, no-one would even be having the debate about the Revolutionary Guard and what they really are like.

It seems that the Pentagon did a much better job or PR in the first Gulf War.

[Air Force Cane]

corcaigh-

they do actually have a press conference in the Pentagon every day- it is just that the mainstream media won't report what they say.

it is up to bloggers to get the truth out. and the truth is that the Iranians have been at war with the US and our allies for 28 years now..

[Koolblue13]

No, what he said was equal moral footing for all bombs.

No one's debating whether targeting soldiers = targeting civilians. My question (and his answer) involved the question "Is there any difference, morally, between blowing yourself up, and setting a timer and walking away?"

You bring up a very good point. I often hear the term "coward" applied to people who are willing to give everything, including thier own lives, for what they believe in. I don't know if I would be brave enough to go into a situation in which I had no fighting chance for survival.

It's a shame that we(American society) are so quick to label them as "loons" or "crazies" and place them under the flag of "terrorist" to dismiss any validation of why the might be willing to go to such great lengths to remove us from the ME.

Also, I ask, does anybody think these would be the tactics of choice, if our enemy was a nation with a standing army, run by the same people or do you think, given the option, they would attack with tanks, missles and planes dropping bombs?

[Bang]

You bring up a very good point. I often hear the term "coward" applied to people who are willing to give everything, including thier own lives, for what they believe in. I don't know if I would be brave enough to go into a situation in which I had no fighting chance for survival.

It's a shame that we(American society) are so quick to label them as "loons" or "crazies" and place them under the flag of "terrorist" to dismiss any validation of why the might be willing to go to such great lengths to remove us from the ME.

Also, I ask, does anybody think these would be the tactics of choice, if our enemy was a nation with a standing army, run by the same people or do you think, given the option, they would attack with tanks, missles and planes dropping bombs?

we know why. They've said why.

they want to create a pure islamic state, and those who disagree with them are marked for death.

Why on earth some of you folks insist on not listening to what their leaders say, why you insist on not listening when they tell you what their motivations are, and then sit back and wax poetic about how patriotic they are, and we should try to understand them

we do understand. They want to subjugate their people. They want to put their women into cloth prisons and treat them as 4th class citizens. And they have said repeatedly they want to attack and bring down the west.

So they strap bombs to themselves or drive cars filled with explosives into crowded markets where women and children are shopping and blow them to pieces, for no other reason than to scare the next set of people who want to come out from under their heels.

As far as labelling them terrorists, when they attack with no other motivation, what would you call them?

The Taliban are an example of what happens when the ultra zealous force their way into power. They turn soccer stadiums into execution sites. They kill women in the street for accidentally showing some ankle.

Their vision of what the world should be is what civilized people soundly reject across the globe.

There is no romance in it. There is no glory their cause. There is the desire to oppress. And they've made it QUITE clear.

~Bang

[Corcaigh]

corcaigh-

they do actually have a press conference in the Pentagon every day- it is just that the mainstream media won't report what they say.

it is up to bloggers to get the truth out. and the truth is that the Iranians have been at war with the US and our allies for 28 years now..

Are they showing examples of the weapons and documentation captured?

FoxNews are refusing to show this stuff too?

[twa]

Kool, we label them as "loons" or "crazies" and place them under the flag of "terrorist" because their actions go against our notion of civilized behavior.

By utilizing this method they not only target innocents,but also make targets of the populace they hide in.

There are reasons why the military is not to set up in civilian population or use them as a screen.,,and the wearing of distinctive uniforms.

I'm sure the Brits thought we were uncivilized terrorist as well.

Perhaps you wish us to remove the restraints we fight under as well??

Added

Sarges "sea of glass" or a few moabs on the troublesome areas sound civilized enough?

[Koolblue13]

we know why. They've said why.

they want to create a pure islamic state, and those who disagree with them are marked for death.

Why on earth some of you folks insist on not listening to what their leaders say, why you insist on not listening when they tell you what their motivations are, and then sit back and wax poetic about how patriotic they are, and we should try to understand them

we do understand. They want to subjugate their people. They want to put their women into cloth prisons and treat them as 4th class citizens. And they have said repeatedly they want to attack and bring down the west. ~Bang

They want to control thier own region, at least they used to. Do you think they want to occupy America Bang?

BTW, do you know what the estimated(by both sides) numbers are for people killed by the US military in the ME or even just Iraq, since 90'. Last I heard, it was close to 3/4 of a million PEOPLE. Who many of them do you think we're women and children or even normal civilians doing normal things and not all at a time of War.

The it's Okay to kill em' all, if they're not on the same page as us additude, from the country who is suppost to lead the world as the shining example of the melting pot, is nieve. BTW, who's oppresing all the muslim women in America who don't show ankle.

I'm not condoning anything our enemy does, just saying there are two sides of this war and I don't think it will ever improve or end, until we respect the reasons why.

[Bang]

They want to control thier own region, at least they used to. Do you think they want to occupy America Bang?

So, do you think that the entire middle east wants to live under totalitarian rule, with women being forced to live as if it's the 12th century while the rest of the world progresses?

Do police not break down a door of private property when evil is happening inside?

BTW, do you know what the estimated(by both sides) numbers are for people killed by the US military in the ME or even just Iraq, since 90'. Last I heard, it was close to 3/4 of a million PEOPLE. Who many of them do you think we're women and children or even normal civilians doing normal things and not all at a time of War.

That's terrible. Unfortunately civilians do die in wars. I would say that if you could show me that we intentionally targeted them over and over and over, I'd say you've got something there. I'd also like to see who is providing the estimates. And I'd also like to point out that estimates are just that. Estimates.

The it's Okay to kill em' all, if they're not on the same page as us additude, from the country who is suppost to lead the world as the shining example of the melting pot, is nieve. BTW, who's oppresing all the muslim women in America who don't show ankle.

This doesn't make much sense to me. For decades islamic extremists have targeted the west, blowing up bombs in nightclubs, blowing up bombs in markets, blowing up airliners, hijacking ships, blowing up embassies, blowing up more embassies, blowing up trade towers, etc etc etc.

We've tried to combat this thru diplomatic measures. Economic sanctions have been tried since the days of Jimmy Carter. Incentive programs have been in place since Reagan. And we never went in militarily until 1991 when Iraq invaded one of our allies, who immediately asked for help. And we went in as part of a UN sanctioned force charged to do nothing BUT remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait. And that is all we did.

Show me the last time a muslim woman in America was murdered in an honor killing. I'd bet you I can find plenty in the middle east that happened within the last month. Show me the last time a woman was publicly beheaded in American streets for looking at someone the wrong way, or for someone looking at THEM the wrong way. But when the Taliban was in power, it was a daily occurence. You could prbably even youtube up some nice nasty footage of it.

I'm not condoning anything our enemy does, just saying there are two sides of this war and I don't think it will ever improve or end, until we respect the reasons why.

I think you still ignore the reasons why. You state above that it's their own territory, and so imply that it is their right to do this, yet down here you try once again to say we don't understand their motives.

We sure as hell do understand them. And so do you. I understand that you think war is abhorrent and that makes it difficult if not impossible for you to condone our action. I get that. I think it's the MOST abhorrent thing there is. I wish there were another way. But the cards are dealt, and in my mind, once committed, you better commit to win.

Yes there are two sides to the war.

And I firmly believe the extremists we fight are wrong.

to change gears... beyond the flag waving rah rah and all that... to the practicality. Let's say they do manage to control the middle east (the extremists.) Lets say Taliban-like regimes do proliferate as they want them to.

The region is way too valuable to the rest of the world to allow that kind of instability and uncertainty, no? We're fast becoming a complete global community, and the middle east, while 5,000 miles away, is really only right around the corner.

If the globe is becoming so tightly knit in terms of our basic needs, is it wise to not step in and try to protect what is still a very precarious balance?

Just throwing that angle out there.

~Bang

[Koolblue13]

to change gears... beyond the flag waving rah rah and all that... to the practicality. Let's say they do manage to control the middle east (the extremists.) Lets say Taliban-like regimes do proliferate as they want them to.

The region is way too valuable to the rest of the world to allow that kind of instability and uncertainty, no? We're fast becoming a complete global community, and the middle east, while 5,000 miles away, is really only right around the corner.

If the globe is becoming so tightly knit in terms of our basic needs, is it wise to not step in and try to protect what is still a very precarious balance?

Just throwing that angle out there.

~Bang

I think this is the thing to focus on, right here. People of a forign country, attacking others in a forign country, does not make them my enemy. I don't like them and I wish they didn't exist, but unfortunitly, they do, but standing in the way of "our" progress, is no reason to bring death to millions of people, like either side has.

Do we tartget civilians? We target towns and cities, just because we are targeting the enemy and civilians are colateral damage, we still target them. Does that make it okay in your eyes?

Our standing army has only reciently begun to occupy the ME, that is true, but how long have our arms decided who is strong and how has our CIA impacted who can or will fight? These are things leaders of our enemies have questioned and found fault with, leading to attacking the people who in a democracy, have put them in place and in possition to do these types of things.

Now we are following the plans we had in place that lead to 9/11 and the Iraqi war and implicating them in terms of how we deal with Iran. Where do you think that is going to get us?