Belief.
Doing something suicidal to further a cause you believe in, does not seem deranged to the ones doing it. I am sure that they feel it is desperate. Some may even be aware that their individual action is not going to turn the tide, win the day. As mentioned, every war, struggle, has included suicidal acts in support of the goal. Sometimes they are even completely symbolic, causing death only to the single person, no intent to harm others. Desperation. Total belief that you are right. Believing that it is your best way to accomplish the goal.
Hero or villain, waste or success, is very often an unknown. Often depends on who wins.
The whole idea of suicidal struggle, seems to me, a marker for things gone astray, to the point of futility. Not just for the side that has gone suicidal. All sides need to look at what brings us to that point.
At the time, it was Bill Clinton, riding about a 60% approval rating during one of the strongest economies in our nation’s history. I don’t think political anger played much into it, at the time.
Then you should probably go to a different forum or board where you can play it. Your response was to a legitimate question regarding the fact that you had conflated the issues of terrorist bombings of civilians, Kamikaze-style attacks, and combat sacrifice. The question was intended to get you to recognize the differences rather than treating them as identical.
Your response is not appropriate.
While Ibn Warraq’s question was rudely expressed, your response was, again, inappropriate.
Both of you need to display a bit more civility, here.
You are missing the point. The point being that it takes some decent fraction of Americans being feed up with politics/politicians in general for a major scene in a major movie to be where the White House is blown the fuck up and not getting some sort of social backlash. Though I would concede the point might or might not BE argueable as true.
I would make the observation that the president of the movie did NOT represent any current or recent president of the movie’s era. I actually thought of bringing that up in my original post for that matter. It was some random reasonably smart reasonably likeable middle aged white guy for Petes sake.
I’ll take a wild assed guess that you were/are pro Clinton though and found some offense about my post to take.
??? Even in wartime? The enemy strongpoint is holding up the entire battalion, everyone’s pinned down, we’re taking casualties, so one guy says “Screw this,” grabs a backpack demolitions charge, and rushes the strongpoint, knowing he’s very likely to die…
Why pity? And why in hell contempt?
“It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done…”
I think the point is that he wants to do something to help his team out, and doesn’t care that it will require him getting killed. If he lives through it somehow, he’ll be grateful. Many Islamic terrorists, on the other hand, actively do want to be killed while fighting for Islam, because they believe it will give them a free pass into heaven or whatever.
I repeat, there was no social backlash around Independence Day’s decision to blow up the White House. It was a spectacular special effect (an Oscar-winning special effect, in fact)… no more, no less.
You see this when Will Smith borrows the helicopter to pick up his fiance. They’re flying in from all over the place, they’re not actually stationed at Area 51.
It’s intended ironically. I don’t think that. I think the opposite of that. That’s the reason for the quotation marks.
My point is that you hear this sort of thing all the time from professional islamophobes like Sam Harris and Bill Maher.
‘the reason we have so many Muslim suicide bombers is that the Quran contains this concept of martyrdom and believers feel that by sacrificing themselves they will be automatically granted paradise.’
I agree that this is very ignorant. My point was that the same same behaviors could be viewed as noble for entirely secular reasons.
The idea floated by some here that suicide bombing is justified as a sort of ‘plan b’, only after a conventional assault fails, I view as faintly silly. At the very least, I think it requires further explanation as to why.
I did not get that from the question, which was phrased as an instruction with a question mark at the end. I am happy to respond given your clarification.
I regard the targeting of civilians as an entirely separate question. It is in my opinion always deplorable to deliberately target civilians regardless of the methods used.
While suicide bombing, kamikaze-style attacks and combat sacrifice are all different, I view their primary motivations as the same. The desire to do right thing in spite of the personal cost and the desire to be remembered as a hero. Expectation of reward in the afterlife may also be a prominent consideration, but it is disproportionately emphasised when the emphasis is on portraying the perpetrator as an insane fanatic. Failing to acknowledge the other possible motivations and considering only this last one is a frequently deployed propaganda tool.
As to your second rebuke regarding my use of English. I accept that my response may have been considered unnecessarily sarcastic. I honestly didn’t see a polite way of responding. It was intended light-heartedly although I appreciate that it may not have come across that way.
Except that’s simply not true. Most soldiers who willingly sacrifice their lives do so to save the lives of their friends and fellow soldiers; anything else is secondary. On the other hand, I’ve never heard of a suicide bomber who believed that his death would ultimately lead to fewer people dying, on either side of the conflict.
They are all potentially noble and all potentially evil. It depends on why they are being used. Targeting civilians is always reprehensible in my view.
So by ‘combat sacrifice’ you mean the ‘throwing yourself on a grenade’ type scenario? I accept that as something different. It wasn’t something I mentioned myself though.
That kind of thing can happen outside of conflict obviously. Pushing someone out of the way of a bus knowing you will be hit for example.
What’s the difference between jumping on a grenade, and flying into a giant enemy spaceship that’s about to open fire and kill thousand of people on the ground? Other than the special effects budget, of course.
Bringing it out of the terrorist and civilian sphere, and focusing on organized military actions, I always found it a bit odd when I saw “The Fighting Seabees”. The self sacrifice of John Wayne’s character at the end (drove his bulldozer into a fuel depot, inundating the flood of attacking Japanese soldiers with fuel prior to self immolation) is very much in the theme of the actions described in “Independence Day”. Also, not so very different from the reviled tactics of the Japanese kamikazes.
I guess it depends on who is “doing” whom.
However, Alessan’s point is also quite valid, I think.