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

steddyeddy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

Kill or be killed!

Phoebas

.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.

.jacksparrow.

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

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

.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

.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

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

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

- 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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

steddyeddy wrote: »

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

Bombers choose where to drop/plant their bombs.

.jacksparrow.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.