There is no moral difference between a Stealth bomber and a suicide bomber

steddyeddy · 03-01-2014 04:36PM #1

This is the quote in full:

There is no moral difference between a Stealth bomber and a suicide bomber. They both kill innocent people for political reasons

It was made by one of my favorite politicians Tony Benn in an interview about Sinn fein and Irish republicanism. Tony Benn was one of the few who wanted the British government to engage in talks with Sinn Fein and he supported Mandela when the British government were calling him a terrorist.

Anyway is there a moral difference between a stealth bomber and a suicide bomber ect and if so why?

EDit: To give my opinion I don't see a moral difference at all. I think any type of violence is morally abhorrent but sometimes it is understandable eg when certain peoples are being oppressed etc. Note I said understandable and not justifiable.

Cabaal · 03-01-2014 04:38PM

There's no difference between a suicide bomber or sum scumbag who plants a bomb in a town centre or outside a police station to try kill people...often innocent people

steddyeddy · 03-01-2014 04:40PM

Cabaal wrote: »

There's no difference between a suicide bomber or sum scumbag who plants a bomb in a town centre or outside a police station to try kill people...often innocent people

Well look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. How is that morally justifiable?

The Diabolical Monocle · 03-01-2014 04:40PM

Or a group of soldiers who shoot down on a peaceful protest from a fortified elevated position.

SEPT 23 1989 · 03-01-2014 04:42PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. How is that morally justifiable?

They started it,thats how

P.Walnuts · 03-01-2014 04:44PM

I remember watching a documentary where a British soldier was calling the Taliban cowards for planting roadside bombs, wanting then to come out and fight like men etc...

He then climbed into an Apache to hover silently 100 feet in the air and pick off unsuspecting targets.

steddyeddy · 03-01-2014 04:44PM

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

They started it,thats how

The people of Nagasaki and Hiroshima started it? It's an atomic bomb. It does not target "bad guys".

3rdDegree · 03-01-2014 04:47PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. How is that morally justifiable?

The Japanese just wouldn't stop fighting otherwise. They were like Russell Crowe on speed!

Nino Brown · 03-01-2014 04:48PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

The people of Nagasaki and Hiroshima started it? It's an atomic bomb. It does not target "bad guys".

That depends on your definition of a "Bad Guy".

Terry1985 · 03-01-2014 04:49PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Well the Japs are nuking America now with radiation from the Fukushima plant.

steddyeddy · 03-01-2014 04:50PM

3rdDegree wrote: »

The Japanese just wouldn't stop fighting otherwise. They were like Russell Crowe on speed!

So killing innocent civilians is the way to go? I'm not disagreeing with you necessarily. I would like to point out that numerous "Terrorist" groups would say that the only way to get X to stop fighting is to use force.

steddyeddy · 03-01-2014 04:51PM

Nino Brown wrote: »

That depends on your definition of a "Bad Guy".

Bad guy is a very black and white term but I wouldn't apply it to thousands of civilians who who were nuked.

The Diabolical Monocle · 03-01-2014 04:51PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

The people of Nagasaki and Hiroshima started it? It's an atomic bomb. It does not target "bad guys".

Their country was raeping China, and needlessly, they could have lived peacefully in a country that provided well for them and had no problems.

Terry1985 · 03-01-2014 04:51PM

Suicide bombers tend to be naive/gullible individuals brain-washed by people too cowardly to do the job themselves.

banquo · 03-01-2014 04:52PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. How is that morally justifiable?

Because otherwise the war there would have gone on for longer, and a greater number of people than were killed from the bombs would have died.

steddyeddy · 03-01-2014 04:53PM

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Their country was raeping China, and needlessly, they could have lived peacefully in a country that provided well for them and had no problems.

The people who were raping China such as those in charge of unit 731 or emperor Hirohito got away scot free. In fact the scientists involved in dissecting people alive in unit 731 worked in Japan's health sector after the war!

steddyeddy · 03-01-2014 04:53PM

Terry1985 wrote: »

Suicide bombers tend to be naive/gullible individuals brain-washed by people too cowardly to do the job themselves.

I would classify some soldiers as such. They often are convinced that a war is justifiable moral eg Vietnam or Iraq

Courtesy Flush · 03-01-2014 04:54PM

All war is terror. And all those who engage in it should be called terrorists.

Nino Brown · 03-01-2014 04:54PM

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Their country was raeping China, and needlessly, they could have lived peacefully in a country that provided well for them and had no problems.

That's my point. In a war like WW2, the line between civilians and soldiers is very blurred. If you're a civilian one day, and conscripted the next, do you go from "good guy" to "bad guy"?

Nino Brown · 03-01-2014 04:56PM

Courtesy Flush wrote: »

All war is terror. And all those who engage in it should be called terrorists.

So when Hitler invaded Poland, the polish army were terrorists for defending Poland, thus engaging in war?

arybvtcw0eolkf · 03-01-2014 04:57PM

Whether its a jet bomber or a grunt with his boots on the ground we all try to be stealthy.. My uniform is camo, my boots are soft & quiet, I've no metal buckets on any of my equipment even my weapon has a flash hider.. And all soldiers go to war for political reasons I guess.

suicide_circus · 03-01-2014 04:57PM

Terry1985 wrote: »

Suicide bombers tend to be naive/gullible individuals brain-washed by people too cowardly to do the job themselves.

Same relationship between a politician and a soldier

dotsman · 03-01-2014 04:57PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. How is that morally justifiable?

Do you have any idea of how many lives those actions saved. Not just american lives, but Japanese?

Don't get me wrong - sucks to be on the receiving end of a nuke. But it was the second World War where, 70 years later, people are still trying to count the dead. After a decade of horrific war where the Japanese where the aggressors, where the majority of casualties were civilians and where the brutality of the regime was well known, killing a few (with respect to the estimated 60 million dead so far) to end the war was a far better option, both at the time and still today, than let it continue for another couple of months, possibly requiring a land invasion of Japan (which would have made every previous battle of the war look like a picnic)

steddyeddy · 03-01-2014 04:59PM

Nino Brown wrote: »

So when Hitler invaded Poland, the polish army were terrorists for defending Poland, thus engaging in war?

Well my view of war/terror is that violence and death are abhorrent but some causes are more justifiable than others. The example you used above is certainly a justifiable one imo.

Nino Brown · 03-01-2014 05:00PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well my view of war/terror is that violence and death are abhorrent but some causes are more justifiable than others. The example you used above is certainly a justifiable one imo.

The problem with war is, everyone thinks they're justified.

P_1 · 03-01-2014 05:01PM

Is killing more justified if it's done in the name of nation states? No, killing is killing is killing

Daqster · 03-01-2014 05:02PM

dotsman wrote: »

Don't get me wrong - sucks to be on the receiving end of a nuke.

Yeah, it'd ruin your day alright.

An Coilean · 03-01-2014 05:03PM

Terry1985 wrote: »

Suicide bombers tend to be naive/gullible individuals brain-washed by people too cowardly to do the job themselves.

And your average soldier?

steddyeddy · 03-01-2014 05:04PM

dotsman wrote: »

Do you have any idea of how many lives those actions saved. Not just american lives, but Japanese?

Don't get me wrong - sucks to be on the receiving end of a nuke. But it was the second World War where, 70 years later, people are still trying to count the dead. After a decade of horrific war where the Japanese where the aggressors, where the majority of casualties were civilians and where the brutality of the regime was well known, killing a few (with respect to the estimated 60 million dead so far) to end the war was a far better option, both at the time and still today, than let it continue for another couple of months, possibly requiring a land invasion of Japan (which would have made every previous battle of the war look like a picnic)

That's fair enough but terrorist actions often kill far less to support a popular cause and these are vilified in the process. Eg the ANC fought against an anti democratic apartheid supporting government and were labelled terrorists.

steddyeddy · 03-01-2014 05:05PM

An Coilean wrote: »

And your average soldier?

Depends on the war. The Iraq war was based on imaginary weapons.

steddyeddy · 03-01-2014 05:05PM

Nino Brown wrote: »

The problem with war is, everyone thinks they're justified.

And whose to say who's right and who's wrong?

There is no moral difference between a Stealth bomber and a suicide bomber

Is there a moral difference between stealh bombers and suicide bombers? 157 votes

Comments