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

youreadthat · 03-01-2014 07:40PM

Does the OP mean a drone? Stealth bomber is a tad different!

Capt'n Midnight · 03-01-2014 07:57PM

Terry1985 wrote: »

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

Or normal people who were forced to do it because it was that or have their family killed.

One of the reasons I can't stand IRA apologists.

Ben Shekelberg · 03-01-2014 07:58PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Or normal people who were forced to do it because it was that or have their family killed.

One of the reasons I can't stand IRA apologists.

Yeah republicans tend to overlook that particular IRA tactic.

Baked.noodle · 03-01-2014 08:09PM

There is a moral difference between Stealth Bombers and Suicide Bombers. The pilot flies plains for a living, serving whatever country they do. They carry out the political will of the leaders of their country. This type of war is usually asymmetrical, and in most insentiences the pilots life is at a very low risk. The Suicide Bomber on the other hand has more limited options for engagement. The bomber sacrifices his/her own life in order to exert pressure on a superior force. Many peoples around the world have limited options for war and surly at least some of these struggles are more or less legitimate struggles for self determination.

c_man · 03-01-2014 09:35PM

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

Pretty crap quote, which suits Benn's politics just fine I suppose. I'd put it more accurately, that they both CAN kill innocent people.

Is there a difference between a stealth bomber taking out an anti-aircraft position, and a suicide bomber blowing up a bus? Or a suicide bomber attacking an army checkpoint, and a stealth bomber blowing up a wedding party in Pakistan?

steddyeddy · 03-01-2014 10:35PM

Ben Shekelberg wrote: »

Have they ever paid any compensation like the Germans? They're still reviled in many parts of Asia, and frankly that's not surprising. As for the atomic bombs, I don't believe for one second the Japenese weren't going to fight to the last man. The committed atrocities on par with the Nazis, and while I don't take any pleasure in the thought of civilians being incinerated, I can't say I feel much sympathy.

I don't know whether they have or not but they certainly gloss over their part in WW2 in their school history curriculum.

steddyeddy · 03-01-2014 10:37PM

c_man wrote: »

Pretty crap quote, which suits Benn's politics just fine I suppose. I'd put it more accurately, that they both CAN kill innocent people.

Is there a difference between a stealth bomber taking out an anti-aircraft position, and a suicide bomber blowing up a bus? Or a suicide bomber attacking an army checkpoint, and a stealth bomber blowing up a wedding party in Pakistan?

Yes there is a difference but it's not black and white. It really depends why the army is fighting in the first place.

steddyeddy · 03-01-2014 10:42PM

youreadthat wrote: »

Does the OP mean a drone? Stealth bomber is a tad different!

That was Tony Benn's quote he was talking about terrorist attacks in general. He maintained that a terrorist bomb attack is akin to a military bomb attack.

BrokenArrows · 03-01-2014 10:47PM

The difference is that for the majority of suicide bombers the targets are civilians, but the stealth bombers have military targets with civilian casualties.

the_syco · 03-01-2014 10:53PM

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

They're both guided by someone else. The stealth bomber by the pilot, the suicide bomber by their handler.

steddyeddy · 03-01-2014 10:55PM

BrokenArrows wrote: »

The difference is that for the majority of suicide bombers the targets are civilians, but the stealth bombers have military targets with civilian casualties.

Or you could say the majority of suicide bombers targets are civilians and the proponents of stealth bombers convince themselves the targets are civilians.

Sound of Silence · 03-01-2014 11:13PM

Both methods involve the delivery of high explosives on a target.

What that target is seems like the more important point when deciding whether it's moral or not.

I'd have no doubt in mind that many Western Militaries would have no problem using a suicide bomber if it seemed to them to be the most logical method of attack, and if they knew they could escape the inevitable fallout in the press. If they had to, I'm guessing they would probably frame it as being one man's brave and valiant sacrifice in the name of Liberty.

Now that I think of it, there were plenty of scenes in Films where characters essentially blew themselves up to save others or deliver some final blow on the enemy. Seems like it's not that foreign or disgusting of a thought in the popular consciousness.

dj jarvis · 03-01-2014 11:13PM

Ben Shekelberg wrote: »

Stealth bombers go in take out legit military targets. Suicide bombers blow themselves up in markets and train stations in an attempt to kill as many civilians as possible. So yes, there is a difference.

so the stealth bomber that was used during the first gulf war to bomb a "military" bunker , but in fact was a air raid shelter , killing over 200 women and children was targeting a legit target ?

depends on who is doing the targeting and why - you post is very naive
does it matter how innocent are killed - they still die horribly
if you use a purely numeric reasoning a suicide bomber will almost always kill a lot less than a bomber at 35,000 ft ever will

Phoebas · 03-01-2014 11:33PM

Ben Shekelberg wrote: »

Yeah republicans tend to overlook that particular IRA tactic.

True that.
Proxy bombing is far, far worse than suicide bombing. It takes a special kind of warped individual to take part in it. At least suicide bombers are putting their money where their mouth is, so to speak.

sheesh · 03-01-2014 11:41PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

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.

well yes, the IRA bombed themselves to the negotiation table. the US used nukes to end the war in the pacific. The ANC used terrorism to further their aims and eventually got them. It is how you tell the story of it afterwards that keeps you out of prison.

The problem with suicide bombers is they can only die once so you need a new person each time. Suicide bombers are very good at a spectacular bombing event but you need a more long term plan and a willingness to negotiate to make any real progress.

Phoebas · 03-01-2014 11:41PM

dj jarvis wrote: »

so the stealth bomber that was used during the first gulf war to bomb a "military" bunker , but in fact was a air raid shelter , killing over 200 women and children was targeting a legit target ?

I think you're referring to the Amiriyah shelter. The death toll was over 400.

Intention is important. I don't think they intended to bomb a shelter, but they probably were recklessly careless (which is almost as bad).

steddyeddy · 03-01-2014 11:54PM

Phoebas wrote: »

I think you're referring to the Amiriyah shelter. The death toll was over 400.

Intention is important. I don't think they intended to bomb a shelter, but they probably were recklessly careless (which is almost as bad).

What about guys who can't afford stealth bombers but intend to take out military targets rather than civilians? Is their intention important?

steddyeddy · 03-01-2014 11:57PM

Guys Tony's interview wasn't even about suicide bombers he was discussing the falsehood in attributing a morality to military attacks vs terrorism.

steddyeddy · 04-01-2014 12:02AM

Phoebas wrote: »

True that.
Proxy bombing is far, far worse than suicide bombing. It takes a special kind of warped individual to take part in it. At least suicide bombers are putting their money where their mouth is, so to speak.

How is that worse than bombing someone from a distance?

tdv123 · 04-01-2014 12:07AM

Tony Benn is right there is no difference.

To quote a line from a cow " crimes is crime is crime, it is not political it is crime".

Anybody who disagrees with Mr.Benn is a hypocrite who wants to try * justify murdering innocent people.

Those people who voted against Mr. Benn are trigger happy people with child blood on their hands.

Mr. Benn is one of the greatest moral leaders of our time & we are lucky to have him

What a f**king legend. A MLK of the UK

dj jarvis · 04-01-2014 12:09AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

How is that worse than bombing someone from a distance?

for the individuals concerned the difference is chalk and cheese , suicide bomber is going to meet the flying spaghetti monster , brad from Montana sitting in his air cond container , drops the ordnance on the target , and goes home , massive difference in result for the participant.

the suicide bomber is more invested in the moment than brad will ever be.

Courtesy Flush · 04-01-2014 12:11AM

Whats the difference between air bombing a town and planting a bomb in a town center?. For example during WWII the allies belived if they killed enough German citizens with air raids it would demoralize the populace and turn the war in their favour

steddyeddy · 04-01-2014 12:13AM

tdv123 wrote: »

Tony Benn is right there is no difference.

To quote a line from a cow " crimes is crime is crime, it is not political it is crime".

Anybody who disagrees with Mr.Benn is a hypocrite who wants to try * justify murdering innocent people.

Those people who voted against Mr. Benn are trigger happy people with child blood on their hands.

Mr. Benn is one of the greatest moral leaders of our time & we are lucky to have him

What a f**king legend. A MLK of the UK

That clip sums up the legend that Tony is. A true gent.

Captain Chaos · 04-01-2014 12:20AM

Courtesy Flush wrote: »

Whats the difference between air bombing a town and planting a bomb in a town center?. For example during WWII the allies belived if they killed enough German citizens with air raids it would demoralize the populace and turn the war in their favour

Because the US are aiming their bombs at certain targets and generally see the target area before release. A bomb planted in a town centre is going to kill random civilians.

Yes the allies bombed civilians in WW2 on mass and intended to do it, Germany like wise with V2s. Besides they didn't have the technology to hit just one building or just one car with one bomb from 20,000ft+ like the US can do today. If the allies wanted to bomb a factory they had to level a few city blocks with around 100 heavy bombers dropping over 1,000 bombs in the process. Germany targeted Tara Street fire station in WW2 for helping out in Belfast, their bombers ended up bombing Fairview and North Strand in the process, shows you how much you can miss by back then.

Chalk and cheese all over your point.

Phoebas · 04-01-2014 12:40AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

How is that worse than bombing someone from a distance?

How is forcing someone to carry out a suicide bombing under threat of their family's life worse than, say, using a remote detonator?
Are you f'ing serious?

.jacksparrow. · 04-01-2014 12:40AM

Captain Chaos wrote: »

Because the US are aiming their bombs at certain targets and generally see the target area before release. A bomb planted in a town centre is going to kill random civilians.

Yes the allies bombed civilians in WW2 on mass and intended to do it, Germany like wise with V2s. Besides they didn't have the technology to hit just one building or just one car with one bomb from 20,000ft+ like the US can do today. If the allies wanted to bomb a factory they had to level a few city blocks with around 100 heavy bombers dropping over 1,000 bombs in the process. Germany targeted Tara Street fire station in WW2 for helping out in Belfast, their bombers ended up bombing Fairview and North Strand in the process, shows you how much you can miss by back then.

Chalk and cheese all over your point.

Yet only last week an american drone strike missed its target and killed 15 people at a wedding.

Chalk and cheese alright.

Phoebas · 04-01-2014 12:42AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

What about guys who can't afford stealth bombers but intend to take out military targets rather than civilians? Is their intention important?

Of course it is. Intending to target combatants is a lot different to intending to target civilians.

.jacksparrow. · 04-01-2014 12:43AM

Phoebas wrote: »

How is forcing someone to carry out a suicide bombing under threat of their family's life worse than, say, using a remote detonator?
Are you f'ing serious?

Well seems some people in this thread claims its ok to drop a bomb and kill 70,000 innocent civilians, it doesn't seem so bad.

KwackerJack · 04-01-2014 12:44AM

Kill or be killed!

Phoebas · 04-01-2014 12:45AM

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

Well seems some people in this thread claims its ok to drop a bomb and kill 70,000 innocent civilians, it doesn't seem so bad.

But bad nonetheless.

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

Comments