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

.jacksparrow. · 04-01-2014 12:47AM

Phoebas wrote: »

But bad nonetheless.

Absolutely, but this thread has shown people will believe what their told is right.

How anyone thinks 70,000 innocent civilians been vaporised somehow helped the human race is beyond my comprehension.

steddyeddy · 04-01-2014 12:51AM

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.

But a lot of terrorist organizations haven't got the technology for full scale attacks so one could justify their attacks by the same lines.

dj jarvis · 04-01-2014 12:52AM

.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.

back to the 2 nukes the Americans dropped , they killed x and saved y , y is a far bigger number , you are morally bound to save the larger number , why should more die ? if its GOING to happen , regardless of the morality of the actual decision to drop , the prime objective is to save greater numbers

killing those people in the 2 citys , if the DIRECT result was the saving of ten fold , then , they must be dropped

Phoebas · 04-01-2014 12:54AM

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

Absolutely, but this thread has shown people will believe what their told is right.

How anyone thinks 70,000 innocent civilians been vaporised somehow helped the human race is beyond my comprehension.

Sure some people on this thread think that forcing a person to explode a car bomb, killing themselves and other, under threat of their families lives 'doesn't seem so bad'. :rolleyes:

steddyeddy · 04-01-2014 12:55AM

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?

Both are resultant in the death of innocent people for political gain. How is blowing up a person from a distance any better?

Baked.noodle · 04-01-2014 12:56AM

dj jarvis wrote: »

back to the 2 nukes the Americans dropped , they killed x and saved y , y is a far bigger number , you are morally bound to save the larger number , why should more die ? if its GOING to happen , regardless of the morality of the actual decision to drop , the prime objective is to save greater numbers

killing those people in the 2 citys , if the DIRECT result was the saving of ten fold , then , they must be dropped

I believe a demonstration of the nukes power would have been sufficient to end the war. The Americans can't justify what they did; even less so today with blatant hypocrisy when it comes to killing civilians.

qaf · 04-01-2014 12:56AM

- Stealth bombers don't typically drop their payload on their fellow US civilians on purpose

- Suicide bombers most of the time end up killing other Afghani civilians or the Afghani police or army riding around in open top pick-up trucks

- Stealth bombers are piloted by highly educated voluntary airmen

- Suicide bombers are mostly brainwashed kids/young adults who lack formal educations and are taken advantage of by their handlers

steddyeddy · 04-01-2014 12:58AM

Phoebas wrote: »

Sure some people on this thread think that forcing a person to explode a car bomb, killing themselves and other, under threat of their families lives 'doesn't seem so bad'. :rolleyes:

Were did I say that? It's a thoroughly dehumanizing thing to do as is dropping an explosive device out of a plane. I'm pointing out the ridiculous of attaching a moral superiority to one. The reason behind the attack is more important to me.

.jacksparrow. · 04-01-2014 12:58AM

Phoebas wrote: »

Sure some people on this thread think that forcing a person to explode a car bomb, killing themselves and other, under threat of their families lives 'doesn't seem so bad'. :rolleyes:

I was been ironic maybe sarcastic.

Sorry it went over your head.

anncoates · 04-01-2014 01:00AM

The problem with these threads is not so much that the premise is wrong (obviously both examples are bad) rather that the supposed plea for parity of life loss is generally nothing to do with genuine revulsion at innocent death and more to do with a kind of reverse justification of the group or faction you are championing.

Phoebas · 04-01-2014 01:00AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Both are resultant in the death of innocent people for political gain. How is blowing up a person from a distance any better?

That's a bit like asking if murder is any better than torture followed by murder.

steddyeddy · 04-01-2014 01:10AM

Phoebas wrote: »

That's a bit like asking if murder is any better than torture followed by murder.

I agree there. It is a particularly scummy thing to do. I'm saying it isn't a case of bad vs good.

NuckingFacker · 04-01-2014 01:15AM

I'm guesing if you're the one getting ripped to pieces, you don't much care about the persons motives or justifications. You just yearn for the days you regarded as "boring".

The difference between a suicide bomber and a stealth bomber is finances. If AL-Quaida could afford stealth bombers, I doubt suicide bombers would be in demand, and if "the man" could afford a satelite with a laser beam that could kill, I'm guessing stealth bombers would be history. Some people regard killing as a means to an end. The method is usually only constrained by public approbrium and finances.

Phoebas · 04-01-2014 01:23AM

NuckingFacker wrote: »

The difference between a suicide bomber and a stealth bomber is finances.

The difference for me is who you target.

A suicide bomber is willing to pay with their own lives for their action, whereas a stealth bomber commander is going to go home for dinner at the end of the day.
On the other hand, stealth bombers usually strike military targets where suicide bombers usually strike civilian targets.

NuckingFacker · 04-01-2014 01:27AM

Phoebas wrote: »

The difference for me is who you target.

A suicide bomber is willing to pay with their own lives for their action, whereas a stealth bomber commander is going to go home for dinner at the end of the day.
On the other hand, stealth bombers usually strike military targets where suicide bombers usually strike civilian targets.

Again, capacity, i.e - finances.

tobothehobo · 04-01-2014 01:29AM

I think personally these days it's very easy for people to say all killing is wrong and unjustified but the simple fact is since the dawn of time we have been killing eachother for whatever assets the other tribe has be it land or grain or animals. I'm not going to argue that wiping out tens of thousands of people in the blink of an eye is justified but in a war like ww2 all sides are guilty of atrocities on a huge scale and it also made civilians a legitimate target Used to influence a governments war policy. Bomber Harris really ran with the idea of blanket bombing German city's for no other reason than to try destroy enemy moral. the point I'm making is its easy for some to say this isn't as bad as x or y but better than z. But at the end of the day you can't beat nature and nature has so far shown we are willing to kill eachother over and over for whatever cause we feel is justified at the time.

steddyeddy · 04-01-2014 01:31AM

Phoebas wrote: »

The difference for me is who you target.

A suicide bomber is willing to pay with their own lives for their action, whereas a stealth bomber commander is going to go home for dinner at the end of the day.
On the other hand, stealth bombers usually strike military targets where suicide bombers usually strike civilian targets.

But he's right. The finances and size of a armed force or group determine who they can target effectively. If the IRA/ETA/ANC had weapons and numbers capable of targeting exclusively military targets they probably would.

Phoebas · 04-01-2014 01:35AM

NuckingFacker wrote: »

Again, capacity, i.e - finances.

I'd be fairly confident that their are prospective suicide bombers out there who would refuse to target civilians but would target military targets - and there are bomber pilots who would refuse to drop bombs on civilian targets.

Phoebas · 04-01-2014 01:40AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

But he's right. The finances and size of a armed force or group determine who they can target effectively. If the IRA/ETA/ANC had weapons and numbers capable of targeting exclusively military targets they probably would.

They probably would - but that doesn't lessen their moral culpability for choosing civilian targets.

steddyeddy · 04-01-2014 01:41AM

Phoebas wrote: »

I'd be fairly confident that their are prospective suicide bombers out there who would refuse to target civilians but would target military targets - and there are bomber pilots who would refuse to drop bombs on civilian targets.

Yes those people are called idiots. The central point is that a bombs don't target. It's a chemical reaction.

steddyeddy · 04-01-2014 01:42AM

Phoebas wrote: »

They probably would - but that doesn't lessen their moral culpability for choosing civilian targets.

Bombs don't choose. That's the point.

Phoebas · 04-01-2014 01:43AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

[/B]

Yes those people are called idiots. The central point is that a bombs don't target. It's a chemical reaction.

I don't get that point I'm afraid.

Phoebas · 04-01-2014 01:44AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Bombs don't choose. That's the point.

Bombers choose where to drop/plant their bombs.

.jacksparrow. · 04-01-2014 01:48AM

Phoebas wrote: »

Bombers choose where to drop/plant their bombs.

So do terrorist groups, financial districts etc to target a countries finances but sometimes it goes wrong and innocents die.

Much the same as drone strikes.

Face it we could go all day, but it will lead nowhere.

War has and always will be here, horrible fact of life.

KyussBishop · 04-01-2014 01:49AM

The US has deliberately bombed funerals where they knew there would be a significant civilian gathering, and also is in the habit of bombing the first people attending a bomb scene to help the injured:
http://www.salon.com/2012/06/04/obama_again_bombs_mourners/

Funny now - I remember people deriding that author as a mere 'blogger' when I originally posted some of this stuff before.

The US also had/has a policy of labelling all males of military age as 'combatants', transforming male civilian victims into 'the enemy' after the fact - so about the only difference between the US and 'terrorists', is that the terrorists are usually more honest about their deliberate targeting of civilians.

steddyeddy · 04-01-2014 01:53AM

There's not much not to get. Stealth bombers or bombs are not precision instruments. They both target innocent civilians. The only thing that separates terrorists and an army are propaganda, finances and numbers. The differences in the last two create a need for different tactics.

Like I said in my OP I don't think violence is morally right whoever or whatever tactics are used. For instance compare the Afghanistan invasion by american/British troops vs the ANC "terrorist" campaign. Both used bombs and both doubtlessly killed innocent men women and children. The reason behind the violence rather than the violence is of ultimate importance imo. Simply saying stealth bombers are always better than planted bombs is too simplistic for me.

steddyeddy · 04-01-2014 01:54AM

KyussBishop wrote: »

The US has deliberately bombed funerals where they knew there would be a significant civilian gathering, and also is in the habit of bombing the first people attending a bomb scene to help the injured:
http://www.salon.com/2012/06/04/obama_again_bombs_mourners/

Funny now - I remember people deriding that author as a mere 'blogger' when I originally posted some of this stuff before.

The US also had/has a policy of labelling all males of military age as 'combatants', transforming male civilian victims into 'the enemy' after the fact - so about the only difference between the US and 'terrorists', is that the terrorists are usually more honest about their deliberate targeting of civilians.

The word terrorist is meaningless when you reach a certain level of education about world events but under most criteria the British and American army are terrorists.

steddyeddy · 04-01-2014 01:56AM

Phoebas wrote: »

Bombers choose where to drop/plant their bombs.

Yea and they will still kill innocent civilians. The idea that you can target an explosive device to a level that it won't kill an innocent person is unrealistic.

Phoebas · 04-01-2014 02:04AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Yea and they will still kill innocent civilians. The idea that you can target an explosive device to a level that it won't kill an innocent person is unrealistic.

There are no guarantees, but you can target a bomb e.g. you can drop it on a command post or explode it on a passenger bus.

As the question in the thread is a moral one, the intention of the bomber is important: suicide bombers usually target civilians. Stealth bomber commanders usually target military targets.

Captain Chaos · 04-01-2014 02:08AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Yea and they will still kill innocent civilians. The idea that you can target an explosive device to a level that it won't kill an innocent person is unrealistic.

Look up the GBU-39 and 40 SDB I and II, next to no colleteral damage. Can hit moving targets like a car and has just enough explosive charge to destroy it and little else. Not as unrealistic as you may think.

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

Comments