Suicide bombers

[abelisle]

Ever wonder why there are no Christian suicide bombers? Maybe it's about suicide and not religious beliefs? There's an article about this on http://mobile.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/12/05/the_truth_about_suicide_bombers

[John317]

I think the article makes some legitimate points about suicide bombers being depressed and simply suicidal types of people. However, I don't think it explains why apparently non-suicidal Muslims blow themselves up in a crowded place, killing mothers and babies and even other Muslims.

If that was the main reason many Muslims strap bombs on themselves and blow up other people, we would expect there to be Christians doing it too, since many Christians are depressed and suicidal.

But I think the most important factor is that Muslims generally believe that people who die fighting the enemies of Allah will go to Paradise. Christians don't hold this belief at all. On the contrary, Christians believe that Christ told us to forgive, love, and pray for our enemies. There's nothing similar to this in the Qu'ran-- it doesn't teach Muslims to forgive, love and do good for their enemies.

[phkrause]

I think the article makes some legitimate points.However, I don't think it explains why these people blow themselves up in a crowed place killing mothers and babies. I think the most important factor is that Muslims generally believe that people who die fighting the enemies of Allah will go to Paradise. Christians don't hold this belief at all. On the contrary, Christians believe that Christ told us to forgive, love, and pray for our enemies. There's nothing similar to this in the Qu'ran-- it doesn't teach Muslims to forgive, love and do good for their enemies.

I personally don't think they have made any good points John. Besides it looks like he basing this on this one guy. I do believe that most of these guys are nervous about, not only killing others, but killing themselves. Even if they believe they are going on to paradise. And besides they got there believe from (forgot the guys name who came up with this) Christians. He trained many Muslims to do this with the idea or extended idea from the Qu'ran.

ps: I wish I could remember the guys name and the article I read or saw on the tube about this guy. He talks about how he came up with all this garbage. I think I even remember either posting this myself or someone else posting a video about this. I will try to find it.

[John317]

Yeah, I would be interested in knowing more about the man you're referring to.

I don't think I remember your post where you spoke of him before. Did this person live in recent history?

[Bravus]

Quote:

Christians believe that Christ told us to forgive, love, and pray for our enemies. There's nothing similar to this in the Qu'ran-- it doesn't teach Muslims to forgive, love and do good for their enemies.

Or, you know, that suicide bombing is a last-resort tactic of the powerless against the powerful. You don't need to blow yourself up as a delivery system when you can have a Predator drone blow up a wedding with missiles. Easier on the troops, just as tough on the women and babies. Let's not ascribe to virtue or religion what is better explained with economics and technology.

[John317]

You accidently made it appear that the quote was made by Alex. It doesn't matter to me, but it might to Alex. :-)

I don't think that argument holds water, Bravus. History and even the present is full of many Christians who've felt powerless and helpless, but they don't strap bombs on themselves or on their own children in order to blow up themselves or other people.

For instance, the Christians in parts of India, Egypt, China, Cambodia, Cuba, the USSR, Nazi Germany, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia, Turkey, and Sudan have felt very helpless and powerless, but there's no record of Christians blowing themselves up in order to take the lives of their persectors or enemies. However, you do have a lot of examples of Christians in those situations who showed love for their enemies and prayed for them and sometimes even helped to convert them to Christ.

Economics won't explain that, but the love of Christ from the Holy Spirit will.

Marxists believe all things human, including doctrine and the church, can be explained by economics and technology. While economics does play a huge role in influencing most of life and society, and yes, even the church, Marxists-- and anyone else-- are wrong to reject or ignore the essential role of the Bible and the Holy Spirit.

[John317]

Bombing yes, but did the Jews commit suicide bombings? That's the question, not whether people kill their enemies or fight with bombs.

A related issue is the fact that the Japanese used suicide bombings also, but American pilots didn't. Many Japanese pilots regularly trained for it and were commanded to do it, and they did it gladly. I don't know of anytime when the same can be said of Americans or of Christians or of Jews.

[bonnie]

Bombing yes, but did the Jews commit suicide bombings? That's the question, not whether people kill their enemies or fight with bombs.

A related issue is the fact that the Japanese used suicide bombings also, but American pilots didn't. Many Japanese pilots regularly trained for it and were commanded to do it, and they did it gladly. I don't know of anytime when the same can be said of Americans or of Christians or of Jews.

Maybe if those like Bin Ladin spent their billions on helping educate their country men,create businessess etc rather than paying their families for their sons blowing themselves to bits it might be more helpful as well.

[John317]

Yes, I agree. That's a good point, I think.

Also, there are Muslim countries and wealthy Arabs and Muslims who could give land and money to the Palestinians, but they don't do it. Sometimes I wonder if there are those who like to see the problems between the Jews and the Palestinians. I don't see how it benefits the Jews, but I do see how it benefits some of the groups who are opposed to Israel and want Israel destroyed.

[bonnie]

Yes, I agree. That's a good point, I think.

Also, there are Muslim countries and wealthy Arabs and Muslims who could give land and money to the Palestinians, but they don't do it. Sometimes I wonder if there are those who like to see the problems between the Jews and the Palestinians. I don't see how it benefits the Jews, but I do see how it benefits some of the groups who are opposed to Israel and want Israel destroyed.

I don't recall in history the carnage on a regular basis caused by the suicide bombers and terrorists of today. Had the Jews,a desperate,starving oppressed people in Germany taken this route they could have caused untold damage to the Germans

Yes,there were resistence fighters but they were not blowing up their fellow resistence peers.

.The freed slaves certainly fell into that same catagory. One freed slave not caring if he lived or died could have caused the same type of horror and death.

Muslims blow up other muslims as easily as they would run over a dog in the street.

For once look to who is doing it and lay it at their feet. Look to the leaders of these bloodthirsty countries.

[phkrause]

Maybe if those like Bin Ladin spent their billions on helping educate their country men,create businessess etc rather than paying their families for their sons blowing themselves to bits it might be more helpful as well.

Excellent point. On another thread I posted a article by a Muslim from Pakistan, who actually wrote to just that.

[LifeHiscost]

Ever wonder why there are no Christian suicide bombers? Maybe it's about suicide and not religious beliefs? There's an article about this on http://mobile.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/12/05/the_truth_about_suicide_bombers

Makes one wonder, when the first Nuclear Rocket is fired to set in motion the IIIWW, if there will be someone saying, "But I thought it was that switch!!"

God Blesses!

[fccool]

I don't think that argument holds water, Bravus. History and even the present is full of many Christians who've felt powerless and helpless, but they don't strap bombs on themselves or on their own children in order to blow up themselves or other people.

You are arguing this point from the position of pacifistic Christianity. In other cultures that's not so... especially in the middle east.

I certainly would not justify the action, but I do agree that the action is reactive and not ungrounded.

+ You have other historical examples where suicides were considered to be self-sacrifice for a greater good.

- Russians would strap themselves with bombs and crawl under German tanks.

- Japanese Kamikatzes would run themselves into ships and targets.

But, I think what Bravus is trying to say is that in that case it's simply an act of war. Essentially people would like to sterilize military actions... and make the suicide bombers to be an atrocity against humanity. In reality, both doing the same thing, which is inflicting maximum possible damage on the perceived enemy.

One has tanks, planes and bombs and considers the women and children "casualty", while the other one lacks the access to those machines... and tries to "hit it where it hurts".

Both are in the same camp. PS. it should speak volumes about the reality when the same people who were waving american flags, are the same people who set the IEDs by the roads.

[there buster]

Quote:

+ You have other historical examples where suicides were considered to be self-sacrifice for a greater good.

- Russians would strap themselves with bombs and crawl under German tanks.

- Japanese Kamikatzes would run themselves into ships and targets.

Destroying a tank filled with soldiers trying to kill you/Flying planes into an office building full of people who are pursuing ordinary tasks--Yeah, obviously that's exactly the same moral action.

Taking a bomb equipped plane into a warship full of military personnel trying to kill you/killing shoppers in a mall--yup, just the same moral action.

Quote:

But, I think what Bravus is trying to say is that in that case it's simply an act of war.

Let's see. Going to the office is an act of war? Going shopping is an act of war?

Quote:

Essentially people would like to sterilize military actions...

No. Nor is it necessary to glorify war. War is a tragedy. It may sometimes be necessary, but it is always a tragedy.

Quote:

and make the suicide bombers to be an atrocity against humanity.

"make" it an atrocity. If it's not, now who's "sanitizing?"

Quote:

In reality, both doing the same thing, which is inflicting maximum possible damage on the perceived enemy.

See above. So "Maximum possible damage" against a tank or a warship filled with enemy combatants, is "the same thing" as targeting non-combatants in an office building or a shopping area, in your mind?

Using that logic, war crimes do not exist. The planes and ships that sought to sink the Bismarck were engaged in "the same thing" as the gas chamber operator at Buchenwald-"inflicting maximum possible damage on the enemy."

[doug yowell]

+ You have other historical examples where suicides were considered to be self-sacrifice for a greater good.

- Russians would strap themselves with bombs and crawl under German tanks.

I'm somewhat familar with WWII but I never heard of this one. The Russians invented the "Molotov Cocktail,the allies all had sticky bombs,there was no need to crawl under German tanks. If you were close enough to crawl under a tank you were close enough to throw and run!! But suicide was never a a common method of warefare except among the Japanese.And even that was a last resort which never targeted women and children intentially!An acceptable form of suicide for Western (Judeo-Christian value system)societies is for a person to subject himself to die so that others around him can live,i.e. Throwing himself on a grenade to save his comrades.

[bonnie]

Most suicide bombers and terrorists are musim or similar.Why do they continue to kill more of their own.Look up the numbers of muslims killing muslims

[doug yowell]

But, I think what Bravus is trying to say is that in that case it's simply an act of war. In reality, both doing the same thing, which is inflicting maximum possible damage on the perceived enemy Good thinking ,tb. One might add that if inflicting maximum damage is a legitimate method of warfare then we should be employing the same tactics. After all, how silly is it to not wipe out the entire population just to be on the safe side? Now that's what you could call,hitting where it hurts.

[fccool]

Quote:

So "Maximum possible damage" against a tank or a warship filled with enemy combatants, is "the same thing" as targeting non-combatants in an office building or a shopping area, in your mind? Using that logic, war crimes do not exist. The planes and ships that sought to sink the Bismarck were engaged in "the same thing" as the gas chamber operator at Buchenwald-"inflicting maximum possible damage on the enemy."

There is no difference between the "noble army" dropping bombs and which cause civilian casualties... and people using planes to do the same. The end result is innocent people dying. I can careless about the causes. When the final result is death of my family... why should there be any difference. There is none!

Both are atrocities. One is glorified, the other one is vilified. That's what I was pointing out.

[there buster]

Quote:

There is no difference between the "noble army" dropping bombs and which cause civilian casualties... and people using planes to do the same. The end result is innocent people dying.

Let's apply that reasoning to a different example, and see how it holds up. If the National Park Service sets a fire to control undergrowth and prevent larger forest fires, and the wind suddenly comes up and the fire spreads beyond control and burns down your house, that's just the same as someone setting fire to your house intentionally to get even with someone in the National Park Service.

The end result is the same--innocent people dying. And apparently you can care less about the causes, if the end result is the death of your family... why should there be any difference. There is none!

Both are atrocities.

[Gordon1]

Many Japanese pilots regularly trained for it and were commanded to do it, and they did it gladly.

Hi John,

Hmm - I question whether educated young men (pilots - i.e. officers) were uniformly 'glad' in their Kamikaze role. Scared white might be more accurate, though 'honor' and pride can often motivate impressionable minds to perform foolish acts. (Think back a few decades.)

And are all those reported suicide bombings real? (e.g. The London 7/7 bombings were not suicides - the bombs were placed in advance)

It makes no sense, so many reports of self-destruction. Quite possibly 'suicide bomber' is a convenient media story. If one seeks to create instability in a country by bombing crowded markets, all is feasible without any suicides. But if the papers report 'suicide bomber', esp. the Western press, how convenient. No suspect, no long investigation, no trial, a 'perfect' crime. The region continues to look hostile & foreign occupation is justified. "Look at those crazy Muslims exploding themselves"

Iraquis and Afghanis are people just like us, except most don't have a pot to squat over. We (NATO) have made sure of that. Let's call it incremental genocide - an estimated 1.4 million Iraqi deaths since the 2003 invasion(http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq)

[Gordon1]

Hi John,

Spilling more grief on this topic of suicide and "Muslims blowing up Muslims" are two tragically sad ironies.

1) The suicide toll in the American military now exceeds combat casualties:

"From the invasion of Afghanistan until last summer, the U.S. military had lost 761 soldiers in combat there. But a higher number in the service — 817 — had taken their own lives over the same period." Time, April 13th, 2010.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1981284,00.html

[in addition there are thousands of veteran suicides each year; 18 per day in 2008:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/21/cbsnews_investigates/main4032921.shtml]

2) The friendly fire casualty rate in Iraq/Afghanistan for the American forces is reported to be alarmingly high. Even if it was 'only' 20%, this would be shocking enough. Accurate figures don't seem readily available, but friendly fire is an apparently accepted and very high cost of waging war. Did they let you know in basic training?

More stats: http://antiwar.com/casualties/

So we can't be sure that muslim civilians are self-destructing at any great rate, but Americans in uniform are facing a formidable foe - themselves.

Nobody wins in war.

[John317]

...Nobody wins in war.

The truth is that as General Sherman said, "War is hell," and there is certainly a high cost to all sides; but history shows that the American colonies won the war for Independence; the North won the War Between the States; and thank God, the Allies won against Japan and the other Fascists. This is just 3 major wars in which it's obvious that one side won and the other lost. So while no war is won without paying a high price, it is nevertheless true that one side won in all three cases, and it really matters who won and who lost.

If anyone doesn't think it matters who won WWII, imagine if you can what would have happened had Hitler and Japan been ultimately victorious. That came closer to happening than most people realize.

[Gordon1]

Thanks John,

I might be too focused on flesh & blood. In truth there is a greater battle being waged.

[John317]

Yes, you're right. I wouldn't personally take up a weapon to kill people, but I don't judge other Christians who do in a time of war or as policemen. We live in a dangerous world, and tragically sometimes those things are necessary.

[John317]

Speaking of the cost of war, I've read that more Vietnam veterans died from suicide than died in the war itself.