I realized my mistake and that's why I edited my statement. Yes, it's all homicide technically, but in a war nobody calls it that.
I realized my mistake and that's why I edited my statement. Yes, it's all homicide technically, but in a war nobody calls it that.
Originally posted by: Jmman
Let's look at the definition of these words........
Homicide......a person who kills another person
Bomber......one who makes and sets off bombs
Suicide......The act or an instance of intentionally killing oneself
Homicide bomber is a more accurate representation of what has actually taken place, since it implies that someone has used a bomb to kill others. If nobody else is killed, suicide bomber is more accurate. And don't give me any crap about the bomber not intending to kill others. If that was the case they would be blowing themselves up in the middle of the desert, not in buses and crowded streets.....
But by that definition McVeigh was a homicide bomber and the guys that did WTC '94 were homicide bombers.
If someone commits suicide by blowing only themselves up, isn't it just called a suicide?
So the term suicide bomber has a specific refrence to someone who does blow themselves up and the people around them.
In this case, just call the guy a soldier. Those phrases only came around to indicate that civilians were the target. In a war, when a soldier of one side attacks soldiers on the other side, it's a perfectly legitimate thing to do. The only difference between this guy and us is that his bomb was short range.
McVeigh was a homicide bomber. If that term would have been coined when he committed that atrocity, I am sure that the media would have called him a Homicide bomber as well........
The term bomber does not imply killing someone........
The term bomber does not imply killing someone........
So we are homicide bombers too. Our bombers kill people, and even if it's military personell, it's still an act of killing.
The term homicide bomber is so generic, that it applies to any bomber. I don't know of too many bombs that are made not to kill.
There's an impasse. While it can't be stated as fact, would you agree, Red, that's it's more likely that it was one of ours. After all, we have been dropping hundreds to thousands of bombs on Baghdad, and their missiles are directed outward. It seems more likely that it was one of ours slightly off course than one of theirs that went the opposite way.
Murder implies something entirely different.......murder implies the unlawful killing of one human by another
I've never cared for the term "suicide bomber" as it has been used to describe someone who's intention is killing other people. In my opinion the suicide is a byproduct of the tactic they are using to kill.
Another issue that has been raised, homicide during war. While one of the objectives in war is to kill the enemy, there are rules of conduct that should be followed. For example killing an unarmed enemy pow is most likely murder. I don't know all of the facts in the case of the taxi cab attack but what I've heard it sounds like a violation of the rules of war.
The reason I think it's important to make the distinction has to do with the final analysis of the war. We need to keep track of the violations of acceptable conduct on both sides in order to understand the overall picture once the war is over.
Another issue that has been raised, homicide during war. While one of the objectives in war is to kill the enemy, there are rules of conduct that should be followed. For example killing an unarmed enemy pow is most likely murder. I don't know all of the facts in the case of the taxi cab attack but what I've heard it sounds like a violation of the rules of war.
The reason I think it's important to make the distinction has to do with the final analysis of the war. We need to keep track of the violations of acceptable conduct on both sides in order to understand the overall picture once the war is over.
Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,530
- 3
- 0
Not at all. Do you realize that we have radar Jamming Planes Called Prowlers that fly with these Bomb Strikes to confuse these SAM's and Iraqi Radar? During the US Strike on Tripoli back in the 80's most if not all of the damage done to residential areas of Tripoli was caused by SAM's that had their radar and giudance systems messed u[p by theses Prowlers. Also, it has been reported by the Brit Intel that the Head of Baghdad's Air Defense was just sacked because of the damage to Iraqi civilians areas incured by SAM's falling back to the city after missing their airborne targets
Baghdad Commander Fired Over Missile Errors
Your statement is accurate but far too reasoned. Let me try . . .
WE are liberators and/or defenders of the peace. Therefore, ANY means by which we destroy our adversaries are just b/c our cause is just. Any civilian that dies by our actions should have run faster.
THEY are evil. If they attack our troops by any fashion other than head-on challenging our tanks with relic weapons and no armor, they are 1) cowards, 2) idiots, or 3) terrorists.
Coward: refusing to face superior firepower and die like a man
Idiot: choosing to face superior firepower and die like a man
Terrorist: any attack which is successful and difficult to counter
Granted, but my question to you is how much do you trust the intelligence service of any of the governments involved right now? I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I know that every government in every war engages in propaganda. It's very important to the US and Britain's government that they not be blamed for these bombs. A "intelligence report" is convenient because it suggests it knows something that nobody else knows, it doesn't have to show it's sources, and this report is exactly what is needed right now to introduce enough doubt to prevent a backlash.
Anyway, I suspect we'll know the truth after the war when people aren't paying that much attention anymore.
One of Lincoln's (my 2nd favorite President) most important yet often forgotten lines . . . (paraphrase)"If I could maintain the Union without freeing a single slave, I would do so."
While Tony Blair gives great speeches as the why invading Iraq is necessary, does anyone believe the REASON we are invading now is to free the Iraqis? Freedom for the Iraqis is a byproduct of kicking Saddam's arse. If Saddam was a manageable despot with WMD, like say Pakistan, he would be touring our best institutions of higher learning and hosting American leaders in his palaces.
At the end of the day we will probably never know who was at fault, but does it really matter? It is obvious that we are trying to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible. If we wanted to carpet bomb Baghdad this war would have been over by now. I also find it amazing the outrage when a few civilians are injured in a war. Let's look at WW2 and the bombing of Dresden or the bombing of Tokyo. In those two attacks something like 250,000 civilians were killed. Let's put this in perspective......
Your argument does not hold . . . we were not trying to liberate the Germans or Japanese . . . we were trying to bomb them into submission. I really wish Rumsfeld's war plan had worked. Although MANY Iraqi would help Saddam pack . . . too many Iraqis and much of the Arab street are tacit if not vocal supporters. We've lost the PR battle . . . so I would not be surprised if Bush doesn't OK some hardcore bombing if Baghdad does not fall within a few weeks. IMO, the only thing holding Bush back at the moment is the promise we've made to rebuild the country.
There is no comparison here. Those were wars between equally matched opponents. Those were wars that were for clear and obvious reasons. Those were REAL wars.
I disagree with your premise this is NOT a real war. It seems artificial b/c we are watching it on FOXKids Club and the ConsumerNewsNetwork. But every civilian casualty (which are typically afterthoughts during domestic broadcasts) and GI family with KIA/MIA notification certainly knows this war is quite real.
So wars can only be fought between "equal" opponents??!! Ok........
I guess we need to define war also, since you seem to feel that this isn't a "real" war.War=A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.
Yep, folks , this is a real war......
As far as liberating the Iraqi people, that is more of result of the war instead of the goal. The real goal is to disarm Iraq and remove Saddam from power......Runner-up Operational Monikers:
Operation Dead Iraqi
Operation Bomb Saddam
Operation MidEast Pit-Stop
Operation Re-election
Operation Desert Redux
Operation You Tried to Kill my Daddy
Operation Don't Fudge with Us (Christian Bush would not tolerate foul language)
Operation Your A$$ is Grass (Rumsfeld would tolerate foul language)
Operation Halliburton Options
Genocide Bomber? they are intent on killing americans and hence are targeting a nationality
oh yeah, and haliburton is no longer in the iraq rebuilding bidder list, so quit complaining about it, even though they are the best company for the job.
oh yeah, and haliburton is no longer in the iraq rebuilding bidder list, so quit complaining about it, even though they are the best company for the job.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 9K
-
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter