Can someone explain this to me?

[AFB]

*Note: I do NOT condone the killing of civilians by anyone. *

Why do people bt!ch so much when a suicide bomber walks up to an military post in Iraq and blows himself up? How is that any different from if he had blown it up with a jet fighter and got shot down? I just don't see how those acts are any different. I understand why people are mad about the killings, but how can you draw a clear distinction between the two?

 

[0marTheZealot]

because you aren't a terrorist when you use bombs and planes.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Believe it or not there are general "rules to engagement" that most of the civilized world adheres to, for the most part. Suicide bombers, car bombers, and others who kill, seemingly for the sake of killing only and without real strategic goals, are just 'terrorists.' I don't personally consider these suicide bombers who *only* attack military targets to be too out of line, but the ones who continually and willfully ignore all civilian casualties or even seek them out are not 'soldiers,' they are senseless cowards.

And yes, I'm sure someone will respond with some links to where coalition forces were responsible to innocent civilan deaths, but if you can't see the difference, there's not much more I can add.

 

[cwjerome]

There are some tactics that are bad. It's the targeting of civilians, especially women and children. It's terrorism because it's conducted by people who don't wear a uniform, don't play by the same rules, and aren't looking to engage enemy forces but rather achieve political goals by striking fear into a group. Those a a couple things...

 

[jjzelinski]

That's not a completely perposterous question, after all in the context he's suggesting the attacks are being performed against military, non-civilian targets.

It seems like the nature of warfare has changed for us; we're the only superpower left and we've pretty much unequivically demonstrated that no one can stand toe to toe with us. What's silly is that we somehow failed to continue that train of thought to predecit the way in which our enemies would be forced to engage us. They have inferior military capababilities, so they are forced to retaliate in less direct measures.

I don't think it's widely disputed that the Republican guard and other units behind Iraq's rag tag front line (most of which weren't even being paid and lacked any dedication to the fight) intended from the beginning to disperese intot he general pupulation and engage in a long term guerilla campaign. IN fact, I believe Bush Sr. stated as much in his own book that explained why he didn't extend GW1 into Baghdad.

In this current model of warfare (arguably similar in nature to what we did during the Amercian Revolution) the LoAC is rendred unrealistic and therefore suggests that the manner in which our forces are being engaged in is natural in a military sense.

On the other hand, based on the strictest definiation of terrorism, think these insurgents could be qualified as terrorists. Their goal is to undermine the will of our nation through attrition, or to influence our intentions in Iraq by instilling fear in our population for the safety of our troops and the notion of breaking open the hornets nest.

 

[gtRFan]

When you're dropping thousand pound bombs, you're liberating, and that's the distinction. Get it?

When you don't have the firepower to fight toes to toes, it takes a lot of guts and will to sacrifice yourself for a cause, be it a very misguided and wrongful cause in the eyes of many.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: amdfanboy
*Note: I do NOT condone the killing of civilians by anyone. *

Why do people bt!ch so much when a suicide bomber walks up to an military post in Iraq and blows himself up? How is that any different from if he had blown it up with a jet fighter and got shot down? I just don't see how those acts are any different. I understand why people are mad about the killings, but how can you draw a clear distinction between the two?

One is condoned by an officially recognized government and the other is not.

With the exception of Saddam condoning the Palestinian terrorists when he was in power, there's really no exceptions to that either.

 

[AFB]

Originally posted by: gtRFan
When you're dropping thousand pound bombs, you're liberating, and that's the distinction. Get it?

When you don't have the firepower to fight toes to toes, it takes a lot of guts and will to sacrifice yourself for a cause, be it a very misguided and wrongful cause in the eyes of many.

Sorry, thanls for clearing that up for me.

 

[Moonbeam]

We use a policy of MAD as a nuclear deterrent. We admit that we are insane and would destroy the world in spite if we are threatened with annihilation ourselves. We admit, therefore, that all is fair in love and war. The use of suicide bombers is a small-potato-perfectly-ok, no?

 

[judasmachine]

David didn't directly engage Goliath blade to blade now did he?