In what way does the fact that they are willing to die while using the bombs make them more or less evil that doing it from the relative safety of a plane? Now if you were to distinguish between military and civilian targets, as in one is less 'evil' than the other, I'd agree...but what does 'suicide' have to do with anthting?
I'd agree with your last line, in that the faked surrenders have nothing to do with the relatove evils of suicide bombers.
Seeing that you know nothing about the morality of war, I have now officially nothing to say. (kicking self for talking with idiots)
Morality of war?!?!?!?!? Is there such a thing, or is it a contradiction in terms, like "Military Intelligence"????
During a War... Was the War against Hitler moral? Is attacking a tyrant's henchmen moral? Is attacking civilians moral? If the combatants (henchmen) dress as civilians, thus endangering the lives of civilians, moral?
Macbeth is a cultural relativist- which makes him a fool. Glynch came to this thread and basically asked what was "wrong" with suicide bombers attacking U.S. Marines. Like clockwork, MacBeth came to his defense. These two are damn lucky they get to live in a culture where they are not penalized for their stupidity.
The main difference as I see it is that the U.S. is trying to keep the civilian casualties at a bare minimum. If a suicide bomber is driving a "civilian" car to an army checkpoint, the U.S. cannot in good conscience attack that car because they do not know if it is civilians or attackers. The U.S. will eventually have to make a decision to attack any and all vehicles due to the unknown aspect of their intentions. The Iraqis continue to put all civilians in harm's way due to their tactics.
Why don't we just declare martial law and ban the use of any motorized vehicle beside US mililtary ones? What choice are we being given: to harm innocent Iraquis or to suffer unnecessary casualties?
Seriously, would any rational person fail to make the moral distinction between pilots and suicide bombers?
The main tack this thread was taking prior to glynch's entry into it seemed to be that since such forces as Fatah were entering into it on Iraq's side, those organizations should be considered fair game. See johnheath, mine, Refman, and pasox2's posts. In that context, glynch's comment seems to run counter to this (ie that the PLO forces should not be considered bad). He focused on their tactics, which is only minimally the point. The fact that they are not using planes is totally irrelevent, in fact I would prefer that they blow themselves up. The fact that they make a habit of targeting Americans, our allies, and civilians is very relevent. Why didn't I address his question? Because it was an obvious trap designed to put the PLO into a better light. Why did I dismiss him? Not because his stance is consistant, but because it is in support of the terrorists.
In addition, glynch knew his take was, lets say unpopular (read: r****ded). That is why the begining of his post was that he knew he was going to get crucified for it. It is like the people who can't differentiate between Hamas and the IDF, only moreso.
Some people cant differentiate between Hamas and the IDF. He can't differentiate between Hamas and the American military.
If you take a hostile act against us we have the right to return fire. The question will be wheter or not its worth it. I mean what can we really do to them. They have nothing.
