Hiroshima and suicide bombers

Great Debates
41

This is exactly the kind of polemic the OP is complaining about. You disagree with the suicide bombers’ goals (even as you misinterpret them), and condemn their tactics as despicable. Meanwhile, you give a pass to the other guys (Israeli, in your example) who are also killing civilians, by saying that “they were provoked into it.”

To paraphrase Donald Rumseld, you fight with the weapons you have. **Clairobscur **points out, in his Algerian war example, that if the resistance – Palestinian, Algerian, whatever – had a full complement of tanks, planes, ships, submarines, etc., they would hardly be using suicide bombers. Suicide bombing isn’t an expression of immorality, it’s an expression of desperation. And it rarely comes out of the clear blue sky. It pretty much means that other avenues of negotiation have completely broken down.

42

Wait, so what were suicide bombers hoping to accomplish? To kill Israelis obviously, but why? What would that accomplish? Bring Israel to the negotiating table, force them to give Palestine self-rule?

Obviously not. Suicide bombers were sent to prevent peace negotiations, to escalate the situation.

And who says I have Israel a pass? Where did I say that? But a clear goal of suicide bombings to provoke Israeli response.

And I reject the “desperation” motive for suicide bombers. Where the 9/11 hijackers desperate? Far from it, they were educated middle class people who could afford to travel. They weren’t starving, they weren’t desperate. That’s crap. There are people much more desperate that the Palestinians who aren’t murdering random strangers in response.

Violence for a bad goal is always bad. Violence designed to provoke violence in return is always bad. Violence for a good goal at least could possibly be good, although it is often bad as well.

43

How many people in the world would know about the Palestinian problem (or even that Palestinians exist), if all the Palestinians did since their problem started was to peacefully negotiate with Israel?

How much would they have achieved this way?

Now, at least people around the world know that there is a problem, and so there is some pressure on Israel to do something about it.

If nobody knew of the problem, no such pressure on Israel would exist.

What is your theory then? Why do you think “educated middle class people who could afford to travel [who] weren’t starving, [and] weren’t desperate” did what they did?

For fun? Because they are “evil”? Because “they hate our freedom”? Because they were brainwashed?

I don’t like the brand of Islam that leads to these sort of things, but it should make us wonder why on earth someone who is otherwise well-off and educated would do such a thing (and knowingly get killed in the process)

44

Let me dodge your question for a moment and ask a question.

Why did Hitler decide to exterminate the Jews? He must have had reasons, right? What drove him to the point where he determined that only the massacre of millions of people would do? Why did the Nazis go along? To ask your own questions:

For fun? Because they are “evil”? Because “they hate our freedom”? Because they were brainwashed?

Like I said, I’m not going to define humans as evil or good, but I won’t shy away from defining human actions as evil or good, and leading to good results or evil results. But no action is an end in itself or a means in itself, all actions are both means and ends. So it’s not an excuse to do some evil thing because you believe it will result in a good end because the evil thing you did was an end in itself. Maybe on balance it was good, maybe you had no choice. Maybe so. But you still did it. And given the limits of knowlege we always have to err on the side of NOT doing evil things for good ends, because the evil that we do now we are sure to accomplish, but the good that we hope will come from that evil is unsure. Yeah, most people don’t set out to deliberatly do evil for the sake of evil. The 9/11 bombers didn’t, Hitler didn’t, the generals who ordered the rape of Nanking didn’t, Stalin didn’t, Mao didn’t, Pol Pot didn’t, Pinochet didn’t. So what? They still did evil things.

So we must bomb the bus full of innocent civilians to stop the nuclear bomb from going off, because it is easy to compare 100 dead innocents to 1 million dead innocents and decide for the 1 million. But how far can we go? Not very far. Can I kill an innocent person if that killing will change the attitude of millions of people in a way I deem favorable? Hell no. What if they won’t change their minds? What if they act in an unforseen way? Even if they change their minds, what will that accomplish? Murder to accomplish vague long-distant future goals is almost certain to be wrong.

And I reject the notion that nothing besides violent murder of civilians would accomplish the goal of Palestinian self-government. That’s crap. Violence and terrorism prevented Palestinian self-rule, it didn’t promote it. It turned the terror masters into the leaders of the Palestinians, it made negotiation impossible. And I’m not just talking about classic terrorism, I’m also talking about the invasions of Israel during the 60s and 70s which were more straightforward nation-vs-nation wars.

Just because a war is a declared war fought between the uniformed militaries of nation-states doesn’t make it right. Just because killing civilians is wrong doesn’t make fighting against soldiers right. I’m not going to murder people until the US switches to the Metric system, no matter how much benefit we might get, now matter how many lives might be saved by switching to the metric system.

45

In a way yes and in a way no. In the first case British Chief of Air Staff Sir Charles Portal worked out a detailed scenario for bombing the residential areas of German cities with the goal of making the living conditions of workers so bad that their efficiency dropped off. The idea was that then German war production would suffer and the German army would be deprived of vital materiel. This was the basis of Churchill’s comment that the enemy would be “dehoused.” The plan, with the added feature of daylight bombing by the US, which would give the German workers no respite either at home or on the job, was approved and adopted at the Casablance Conference in 1942. Looked at in this light, the civilian deaths were “collateral” in the the aim wasn’t to kill civilians but rather to make life miserable. The aim of a suicide bomber is to discourage an opponent from some course of action, such as the US/British occupation of Iraq, by killing civilians directly and not because they just happen to be in the way.

I agree it is a very slight difference, and maybe that slight difference doesn’t really make a difference. During WWII the British referred to the German bombing of London as terror bombing, and the German’s referred to the US/British bombing of German cities as terror bombing. Ergo, both sides equated the bombing of cities as a terrorist activity.

46

This is a tendentious interpretation, not a statement of fact, but you’ve based your entire argument on it. You say that because the goal is bad, every act of violence to accomplish that end is also bad. By being wrong about the goal, you’re left to ascribe every action in support of that goal to simple depravity. It’s that kind of crude reductionism that’s the engine of conflict in the Middle East, and it’s why we never seem to get closer to a solution.

47

Wrong. Yeah, I’m asserting that the suicide bombers had as their goal broadening the war against Israel. That’s bad, according to you. But why give up? After all, a war against Israel could lead to a good end, Palestinian autonomy and the destruction of Israeli occupation of Palestine, however defined. That’s good right? If Palestinian independence is a good end, and suicide bombings are a legitimate tactic to that end, what’s wrong with all out war to that end?

War is bad? Why, if suicide bombing is OK would war be bad? C’mon, war’s great! All for a good cause!

Did Hitler wage an evil war for evil ends? Of course he did! So why is it so hard to understand that people today can do evil actions for evil ends, even though they don’t consider themselves evil people. Hitler was a vegetarian and was kind to dogs. And he ordered millions of people killed. By his lights, he was doing good.

Back to Palestine. But even if you disagree that the suicide bombings, car bombings, rocket and mortar attacks, etc, were designed to force Israel to the bargaining table rather than provoke all-out war, surely you agree that they didn’t accomplish that goal? Was Israel forced to the bargaining table?

No, they decided that negotiations were impossible, so they built the security fence…on their terms, and walled off Gaza…on their terms. The suicide bombings didn’t bring peace, they brought a different kind of war. Violence to accomplish a evil end is evil, we agree, right? What about an evil means to accomplish a good end…except the good end you hoped to achieve never occurs? Then you’re just left with the evil you did. That’s why doing evil to achieve good is such a bad idea. I contend that evil means to good ends are always evil if the good end is never achieved. Oh, you meant to establish a utopia in Germany by exterminating the Jews and invading Russia? And that never happened? Let’s see, evil means, and an evil end. But you meant well!

The insurgents in Iraq are using an evil means…massacring civilians…to achieve an evil end…a totalitarian Iraq. Evil by my lights of course, they aren’t cartoon evil-for-evil’s sake villians, but rather all-to-human rotten people who don’t care who gets killled or maimed as long as they get what they want. The suicide bombers in Israel aren’t motivated by “desperation”, but are pretty much exactly the same as the Columbine mass-murderers and motivated by pretty much similar impulses…with the difference that they have their society’s approval. If kids in the US knew they’d be heroes if they shot up their schools we’d see a lot more Columbine-style massacres. Suicides happen in waves. Same impulse in Columbine and Israel.

48

There is a difference between the bombing of Hiroshima and suicide bombing.

The bombing of Hiroshima was one event in the “total war” of WWII: both sides were going to do just about anything to each other in order to win. Of course, each side thought that it’s cause was justified and thus its methods were therefore justified. The enemy was evil because his cause was evil, not because his methods were evil (but of course there was war atrocity propaganda too). Here we have symmetry.

In the case of suicide bombing, one side is bombing civilians whereas the other side isn’t. The bombers say, “Our cause justifies these methods; besides, it’s all we can do.” The bomees say, “Your methods are evil and your cause is wrong besides. You’re total scum.” Here we have asymetry.

Looked at in terms of morality, deliberate attacks on civilians are wrong–period. Hence, the bombing of Hiroshima was wrong–period.

But we always get the same tired arguments: It ended up saving lives, and they did it to us first, and so on. No. Looked at from a game theory perspective, it would have been all right for the Japanese to nuke Los Angeles had they had the bomb, as it “would have saved lives, ultimatly.” But their cause was wrong! is the retort. But to them, of course, their cause was right. And so we nuke them and they nuke us, if they are able.

Hence, in game theory terms, the way not to be nuked is not to nuke. The Cold War manifested this principle; indeed, it took the Golden Rule to a new level in which we did not fight each other at all (well, not directly).

In the case of the suicide bomber–and I think this explains our disgust and disdain–we are already not bombing the civilians of the other side, but the other side is bombing us because of a “just cause.” They are not following the Golden Rule, they are not playing according to Game Theory.

The actions of both the bombers of Hiroshima and the bombers of the bus are both evil, but their position vis-a-vis their opponents is not. Hence the difference.

49

But this is absurd. You’ve just equated morality with victory.

And by the way, your assessment of the futility of suicide bombers in Israel is not shared by everyone. There are plenty of people – not just Hamas, but sizable sectors of Israeli society – who believe the suicide bombings did play a significant role in the Gaza pullout. So a partial victory for the Palestinians, as some see it, can at least partially be attributed to suicide bombings. What does that do to your theory?

50

If you’re talking about Israel, you’re flat-out wrong. Palestinian civilian casualties have always been higher than Israeli civilian casualties.

51

Isreal vs. Paletine, aka the Pot vs. the Kettle.

I was talking about suicide bombers generally conceived. I dare not comment on the above conflict both for lack of knowledge and lack of interest (propaganda fatigue).

52

Rubbish. It was a two year concoction of lies to launch a war of aggression.

53

the bombing of Tokyo had no other puprosse but to spead panic and terror by targeting the unarmed population

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0310-01.htm

I have to agree with the OP that unless one is hypocritical, both acts have to fall under the same heading…
The main difference is that one is shielded from the horror by propaganda. An example of this are Hitlers germans, They had no idea what was really going on, only what Joseph Goebbels wanted them to know.

p.s. watching FOX news for an hour I have come to realize that nothing much has changed

54

No I didn’t, pay attention please. Victory doesn’t retroactively make evil means good, rather failure always makes evil means evil. Which is why using evil means to a good end is such a bad idea, because the good end is never assured, and if the good end never comes about all you are left with is the evil you have done. You’ve done evil things and got nothing in return. Evil all around. If you use good means to a good end and fail, at least you did those good things. If you use evil means to a good end and fail you’ve done evil. If you use evil means to a good end and succeed, well, maybe on balance you’ve done good, but at what price? How can you measure the evil vs the good? I’m sure the people you murdered would rather be alive and forgo the good end you’ve worked for.

Since you don’t seem to understand what I’m getting at let me spell it out.

War is killing people, killing people is bad, m’kay? But sometimes it’s the only choice, like when those guys over there are trying to kill us, the only way to prevent them from killing or enslaving us is to fight back and kill them until they stop trying to kill us. This is a bad action (killing). It might be in service of a good end (preventing them from enslaving/killing us) or a bad end (like if we want to kill and enslave them). War bad, peace good.

Suicide bombing is also violence, it is in my opinion an even more indefensible form on violence than war. War bad, suicide bombing worse. Could suicide bombing be done in service of a good end? Sure…but this is a more evil means than war, done for a less certain good outcome, and very likely to lead to more evil rather than good. People tend to return evil for evil.

Why do I consider suicide bombings worse than war? Because soldiers are controlled by political leaders and are accountable, at least to the dictator they serve. Suicide bombers are accountable to no one. And teaching kids to kill others (become soldiers) seems much less destructive than teaching them to kill themselves and others (become suicide bombers). Evil means to a good end is questionable, eviler means to a good end is worse, and eviler means to a questionably good end is even worse.

If you want to defend suicide bombings as just another method to achieve what you want, go ahead. I personally am against them. Are you? If you are, why are you defending them? Because they lead to a “good” end, the replacement of Israeli occupation with a Palestinian authoritarian state? Exactly how much good does that do? Nothing is an end in itself, nothing is a means in itself. Peace isn’t an end, self-rule isn’t an end. Things never just end happily, they keep going.

55

And yet the dead end up just as dead either way.

This is not actually the point I’m disputing. In fact, I have to say I agree with you on this, and have all along. The point of the OP – and the point I’m trying to stress – is that it’s unfair to vilify one side for using evil means, calling them depraved, or Columbine-style massacrers, etc., while giving a free pass to the other side, saying they were merely “provoked.” If you want to say that Palestinian suicide bombers are evil, fine, go ahead. But I will insist that if you call them evil, then call the other side evil as well. After all, the Israeli army has killed over ten times as many civilians, including more than 600 children and minors in the last five years alone, as the suicide bombers have. (cite )

56

Prior to the nuking of the Japanese cities, the Japanese government was explicitly warned and leaflets advising evacuation were dropped on the two cities, if I remember my history correctly. Doesn’t that distinguish the bombings from current-day terrorism somewhat?

57

Well, Israelis (civilians and military) know that ever since the * intifada * they are at “war.” Thus Israeli citizens have contructive knowledge of being at war, and thus are fair game, according to your argument.

Also, the object of groups like Hamas or Hezbollah isn’t simply to “cause terror.” This is a gross understatement. These groups have an agenda…namely to liberate the Palestinians who live under the occupation of a foreign military (Israel). The means to achieve that agenda is to act in violence as so the Israeli government opens its eyes and sees that it is not okay force people to live in refugee camps and bulldoze their houses to make more room for “settlers” (more like squatters)

Your logic is also flawed because you assume that “war” is a structured entity that has a definitive beginning and end. Yet we are in a “War Against Terrorism”…a war that was not technically declared and is not against a specified country. Therefore, there are many civilians who may be killed who did not know that the U.S. was at war with them.

58

As opposed to showing recruitment videos to high school kids in poor neighborhoods and telling them to fight for their country. And when they sign that dotted line, they are taught to kill. Perhaps not a suicide bomber, but certainly a killer.

I guess you are against the American idea of “freedom” i.e. alienable right to self-govern, since you are purporting that it is better to live under enemy occupation with limited rights rather than under a gov’t of your own people.

59

That’s crap and you know it.

Self-determination is not an end, it is a means.

Throwing out the Israelis won’t give the Palestinians self-determination, since whoever rules the new Palestinian state will almost certainly be another Middle East dictator.

As for declaring that the purpose of the suicide bombings is so that the “Israeli government opens its eyes and sees that it is not okay force people to live in refugee camps and bulldoze their houses to make more room for “settlers””, now who’s being naive. They aren’t sending teenagers with belts full of explosives into pizza joints to draw the attention of the Israeli government to the injustice of the occupation. You’re smarter than that.

60

Then so are the Palestinians in their refuge camps. So both sides can just go on bombing and bulldozing each other until the end of time. Seems like it’s worked out great so far.

So what do you want me to say? Suicide bombing is ok because Hamas or Hezbollah might have a legitimate beef with Israel?

Yeah…it kind of is. A nation declares war, either formally or through their actions, they fight for awhile. At some point someone either obliterates their enemy or they reach an agreement and stop fighting.

As Lemur866 pointed out, terrorist groups (we’ll define terrorists separately than insurgents) have no country. They are accountable and answerable to no one but themselves. No one elects terrorists to terrorize on their behalf. Sure, some may have legitimate grievances, but what about a Timothy McVey who just decides he doesn’t like the government. All a terrorist needs is an idea and a bunch of weapons.