Justification and conditions regarding suicide missions

[Leonine]

i think suicide is wrong. however, i think there are certain scenarios where it should be allowed. for example, a woman that is cornered and about to be raped and she has a gun and she doesnt want to be taken advantage of.

[randolph85]

How much more? A few thousands?

And what media are you talking about? The embedded journalists of CNN and Al Jazeera that regurjitate Pentagon propaganda in regards to civilian deaths? Then how would you know how many Afghans died at the hands of soviets if there wasn't press coverage of it? In any case, don't you hear stories of night raids, torture detention centres, drone attacks, "kill teams"...helicopters shooting down children for sports...just recently?

"precision weapons" aka "smart bombs"? An Oxymoron. Don't fall for the hype.

how do u know of the atrocities that we both know the americans are committing if u didn't hear the news from some independent non big wig american sources? didn't we both post the same article about night raids killing scores of afghans?

"precision weapons" in that the americans bomb 100 square feet to kill their targets instead of 10,000 sq feet like the soviets would of.

Just a few decades?
Were there cell phones in the 80s? Internet? Sophisticated GPS satellite systems with camera's of all kinds that could detect movements within feets? You are comparing atari with ps3....see the difference?

Lee Enfield - produced in 1895.... not a 100 years difference you say?

like edge said. muslims fighting a technologically superior foe in the 80s vs the same thing today. the taliban don't have gsp, cell phones, or other modern day tech that would aid in planning and executing an attack?

its the same thing 25 yrs ago as it is today, all it takes is some rusty mortar wired up with a charge to take out a super powers soldiers. except today they can set off the charge via cell phone.

it took some cheap rpg to take out over a dozen special forces soldiers and a helicopter worth more than the talibans annual operating budget(i am guessing) a couple months ago. why? because if the stories are to believed, the operation was conducted in an intelligent manner.

rrrriight...a book that tells stories of mujahideen fighting soviets written by americans that work for the US army.

what is ur point? u realize the author also made a book on soviet tactics against the mujahadin?

[BarakzaiAbdali]

how do u know of the atrocities that we both know the americans are committing if u didn't hear the news from some independent non big wig american sources? didn't we both post the same article about night raids killing scores of afghans?

"precision weapons" in that the americans bomb 100 square feet to kill their targets instead of 10,000 sq feet like the soviets would of.




like edge said. muslims fighting a technologically superior foe in the 80s vs the same thing today. the taliban don't have gsp, cell phones, or other modern day tech that would aid in planning and executing an attack?

its the same thing 25 yrs ago as it is today, all it takes is some rusty mortar wired up with a charge to take out a super powers soldiers. except today they can set off the charge via cell phone.

it took some cheap rpg to take out over a dozen special forces soldiers and a helicopter worth more than the talibans annual operating budget(i am guessing) a couple months ago. why? because if the stories are to believed, the operation was conducted in an intelligent manner.



what is ur point? u realize the author also made a book on soviet tactics against the mujahadin?

Wrong Randolph. A practical example shows that its easier to talk about such matters than execute them. Here is a transcript from Najibullah Quereshi's PBS imbed with Taliban utilizing the example you gave, the phone trigger. Read this portion of the transcript to see how it turned out. Read as they are attempting to utilize this approach. Hilited parts are portions to pay special attention to:

NARRATOR: Then they receive a message that more vehicles are on their way, a truck carrying an American armored personnel carrier, followed by a Jeep Ranger filled with Afghan police.
FIGHTER: [subtitles] This mine's messed up. Nothing will happen.
NARRATOR: But as they continue to try to detonate the bombs, they worry they've mixed up the two remote controls.
[subtitles]
1st FIGHTER: Don't panic.
2nd FIGHTER: Is D on this side?
1st FIGHTER: No, which one is D?
2nd FIGHTER: D?
1st FIGHTER: Yes, D's on this side, the 5 digit one.
2nd FIGHTER: I also made a D.
1st FIGHTER: Yes, yes.
2nd FIGHTER: I don't know about a 5 digit one, but I got a D ready, too.
1st FIGHTER: Did you save its 4 digits?
2nd FIGHTER: Yes.
1st FIGHTER: So it'll happen if you press D.
2nd FIGHTER: No, you pressed it for 20 seconds each. It's not 20.
1st FIGHTER: I'll save this one like the other one.
2nd FIGHTER: Sure.
1st FIGHTER: Be alert. The targets are the tank and the Jeep Ranger.
2nd FIGHTER: Hit the tank or the Jeep Ranger, whichever you like. Maybe you should hit the tank. Get up. Get up. Have a look. Don't lose it, understand?
1st FIGHTER: I can't see where I should go. It's not visible. What should we do?
NARRATOR: The target vehicles are getting close.
[subtitles]
FIGHTER: Hurry with the rocket launcher! Take your positions. Go!
ARIF: Keep down.
NARRATOR: But just as they prepare to attack, a group of villagers appear right where they've planted the roadside bombs.
VILLAGER: [subtitles] Please let us pass.
NARRATOR: In the rush to get them out of the way, they miss the American transport. So they try to hit the Afghan police Jeep instead. The remote detonator fails once again, but someone had fired a rocket-propelled grenade. The police shoot back.
[subtitles]
FIGHTER: Now we're exposed!
FEDAYEE: Quick. Go!
FIGHTER: We're exposed.
FEDAYEE: You didn't shout. Is it burnt?
FIGHTER: It's destroyed.
FEDAYEE: If it's destroyed, where are you going? Where are you going?
FIGHTER: I really don't know, but let's keep moving.
NARRATOR: It soon becomes clear that their rocket attack entirely missed the Afghan police, who quickly sped away. And none of the roadside bombs exploded.
ARIF: [subtitles] If anyone trusts you to make a mine, they're a fool. Three guys with rockets should sit 20 meters away and shoot like this. Screw the mines! Mines are useless. We press the button and nothing happens. I told you not to shoot until I moved the kids.

Read more: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...#ixzz1csLOsxTk

The point here that you guys are missing is that it takes ammo ($$), training (?feasability when the sky is chopped up into grids for monitoring by satellite and drone as opposed to the Russkey era), and then perfection and practice of technique.

So now, I have addressed two tactics you guys have proposed... and given TWO practical examples of how they fail on teh battle field against the American technological might and superior training. The first being the sharp shooter that was highly trained and probably using a Lee Enfield, and the second being your proposal of remote detonation.

This example above also shows that these folks do attempt to move civilians, but may very well fail at times. The technology is no simple matter either.

[Al Hanif]

With that in mind, SXE is correct that if the sequence of events plays out and this ends up creating a situation such as happened to FARC where short term concessions are won but the larger propaganda war is lost... then the tactic needs to be abandoned despite the short term benefits.

Who said the contrary ? Maybe if people like you took a ticket to Afghanistan and joined the resistants, they would be stronger and wouldn't be using suicide bombing in the first place. So what are you waiting ? Afghanistan is not my country and I don't have the money to go to help the mujahideens.

What's the point of talking about the mujahideens's way of fighting. Aren't they civilians too, who are fighting for their religion ? Why don't you care about those civilians. Give them helmets and bullet proof vests. Start caring about those civilians who were ordinary people and joined the mujahideens. They are just civilians too but the fact they are suffering from the lack of troops, money and logistical support doesn't seem to affect you as much as the fate of the other civilians.

Compare. How many time have you helped them and how many time have you judged/criticized them.

Of course suicide bombings should be abandoned the very day americans left Afghanistan. Did the Talibans used suicide bombings prior to US invasion ? No.

I don't support suicide bombings nor do I forbit it. I am not a scholar of Islam to make such a decision. But what I know is that the people who criticize the Talibans don't take weapons.

[ScimitarXEdge]

right like theres no way to over come those issues tactically like uh, regulating how your fire.


at this point the evidence based responses have eroded down to just excuse making.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Of course suicide bombings should be abandoned the very day americans left Afghanistan. Did the Talibans used suicide bombings prior to US invasion ? No.]

They didn't use it after either, it took about 3 years before suicide bombing was used as a tactic.

If the U.S. invason was the mechanism that caused suicide bombing it would have present IMMEDIATELY when the U.S. groundwar started.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

There is very much a big difference between convential military training, patriotism and learning to fight on a battlefield and being told constantly that if you blow yourself up the Hooris will be watching your arrival through their windows.

I know very well about military order, what we are taught, and how to fight, and in most cases, we are taught to avoid civilian deaths, however, this Suicide bombing does never include this into their training session.

Most of the cases of victims of suicide bombing missions have been civilians.

One question you should ask yourself barakzai, would you send your children to a professional military school or do a downtrodden madrassah in Waziristan where the child's future will be in the boot of a car.

I agree warfare is warfare, but being brainwashed with illogical means is disastrous to society as a whole.

During my visit in 2009,I went to a Rehab clinic in DI Khan for young boys I can recall, the amount of young boys suffering from severe psychosis, addiction to drugs and severe disillusion to reality. Most of the young kids, would say, they can see heaven in front of their eyes, and would walk to this disillusion and would fall risk to being ran over, thats how severely brainwashed they were, by these Talib/Militant Monsters!

Fighting in a War is not something new to the Pashtun people but being told to strap on a explosive vest is something unheard of in Pashtun society, before it was imported to the region by the Taliban/Al Qaida.

Its like saying, its justified to kill civilians with your assault rifle in a war because at the end of the day its a war, but what difference does it make, when Suicide bombers strike schools,police stations and markets? War is War, I agree, but there are rules of conduct, for which the Taliban never follow, they couldnt care less if a civilian is killed.

My friend,

Once again, you're missing the point. NATO does not suddenly get an ethics pass because they have targeted weaponry and enhanced communication as well as proper army units. Rather, each and every school bomb, each and every villager, their death lies as an ethical delimma at Russia and America's feet. Its ludicrous for the Russians to say, in Grozney... "hey look at us! We dont kill people... why its the Mujahideen and the insurgents! We just sit here in our tanks and are on foreign soil... shrug??"

Its equally retarded for the Americans to say "We rarely kill civilians etc etc" Their PRESENCE itself in multiple areas around the globe elicits a natural programmed response to foreign soldiers sitting in your homeland. Which is war unleashed in all its facets.

You're conflating two wrongs. Take Iraq as an example. You can talk all you want about Zarqawi being a nutcase. We might even find common ground on problems with his worldview. However, why did Zarqawi cross the border into Iraq? Was he there even when Saddam, the secularist Baathist was there???

Why did Osama end up in Afghanistan??? For what reasons did America decide to have the Saudis clamp down on his request to allow the Arabs to solve their own internal disputes???

You are using a tactic Lavanay Zalmaay attempts to use... which is to denote time point zero in history as having started on 9/11/01. That is historically innaccurate.

Yet you refuse to repetaedly address what brought these people into the realm and what created this hysteria and set of problems in the first place.

Western interventionalism by Americans and Russians have resulted in historically predictable results based on how past populations responded to intervention.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

They didn't use it after either, it took about 3 years before suicide bombing was used as a tactic.

If the U.S. invason was the mechanism that caused suicide bombing it would have present IMMEDIATELY when the U.S. groundwar started.

Wrong, Pape answers this in his paper which you refuse to read. He discusses the strategic comprimises NATO made and how introduction of NATO ground troops into particular areas resulted in a spike in such responses. Hoh concurs. You have to rebut the data. We cannot simply accept your statement with an analysis of your own based on the data.

[ScimitarXEdge]

They (this civilian in Kabul for instance) seem to support Pape's common sense conclusion which you are denying simply to stand rigidly by an unprovable assumption.

That's the problem; you think a statement is evidence; but it's not. only actual events are evidence. The Taliban waited three-four years approximately before they started using suicide bombing as staple tactic against invasion

BY COMMON SENSE: and LOGIC if the War itself caused Suicide Bombings, and not rather seeing AlQaeda apply the tactic, we'd see suicide bombings from the very start of the U.S. ground invasion in 2001.

This is evidence based.

Your alleged evidence , doesn't match the Logical Standard of Correlation.

“My father, my grandfather, my great-grandfather, my prophet wore a turban, and that’s why I wear it,” said an older man, looking irritable at the question, adding: “Who brought these turban bombers and turban searchers? You did,”...

Notice he's not shifting the responsibility away from the perpetrators

Your attempt will be to invert his quote and to say that he is actually seeing the light and noting that NATO and the Taliban are the same. To preempt you there, No, the Times gets it right:

You didn't prerempt me considering I have said this already several times elsewhere; you're not tht incisive bro.

and the suicide bomber is the last ditch response is on the lips of the Afghans on the ground.

Why didn't they use this last ditch response against the Soviets? the Soviets were much more heinous than NATO is.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

right like theres no way to over come those issues tactically like uh, regulating how your fire.


at this point the evidence based responses have eroded down to just excuse making.

Wrong. Simply stating something is a fallacy does not make it so until we see a proper rebuttal.

Instead, your responses are simply opinions until you deal with the work. Until then, I choose to trust Pape's documentation and work on the matter because he does a proper analysis of data that is compiled.

Next, you'll say wheres the data. Its there. Its your job to read the paper and his text. I wont read it for you.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Wrong, Pape answers this in his paper which you refuse to read. He discusses the strategic comprimises NATO made and how introduction of NATO ground troops into particular areas resulted in a spike in such responses. Hoh concurs. You have to rebut the data. We cannot simply accept your statement with an analysis of your own based on the data.

But this is clearly false since there were ground troops from the Get go, the most devastating battles to the Taliban were within the first three months of the war.

There is no data to rebut..it's false correlation

here look it up yourself

Post hoc ergo propter hoc - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[BarakzaiAbdali]

That's the problem; you think a statement is evidence; but it's not. only actual events are evidence. The Taliban waited three-four years approximately before they started using suicide bombing as staple tactic against invasion

BY COMMON SENSE: and LOGIC if the War itself caused Suicide Bombings, and not rather seeing AlQaeda apply the tactic, we'd see suicide bombings from the very start of the U.S. ground invasion in 2001.

This is evidence based.

Your alleged evidence , doesn't match the Logical Standard of Correlation.






Notice he's not shifting the responsibility away from the perpetrators


You didn't prerempt me considering I have said this already several times elsewhere; you're not tht incisive bro.



Why didn't they use this last ditch response against the Soviets? the Soviets were much more heinous than NATO is.

Once again, both Hoh's Afghan study group and Pape broke down the data sets. The Princeton response paper as a rejoinder to the Princeton team even delves into the details of data collection and a universal data set.

Rather, its you making statements devoid of evidence and unwilling to deal with the decisive and incisive information at hand.

Repeating the above error regarding NATOs intervention and the timing of suicide bombing upticks is merely proving you are unwilling to consider the evidence. Pape has dealt with this and destroyed your argument in regard to correlation with the NATO strategy and how they fanned out across southern Afghanistan and the combings rised in a correlative fashion. Hoh's Afghan study group work concords independently.

So you are still grasping at straws and just repeating things in teh hopes of redeeming a failed argument.

[randolph85]

Wrong Randolph. A practical example shows that its easier to talk about such matters than execute them. Here is a transcript from Najibullah Quereshi's PBS imbed with Taliban utilizing the example you gave, the phone trigger. Read this portion of the transcript to see how it turned out. Read as they are attempting to utilize this approach. Hilited parts are portions to pay special attention to:

NARRATOR: Then they receive a message that more vehicles are on their way, a truck carrying an American armored personnel carrier, followed by a Jeep Ranger filled with Afghan police.
FIGHTER: [subtitles] This mine's messed up. Nothing will happen.
NARRATOR: But as they continue to try to detonate the bombs, they worry they've mixed up the two remote controls.
[subtitles]
1st FIGHTER: Don't panic.
2nd FIGHTER: Is D on this side?
1st FIGHTER: No, which one is D?
2nd FIGHTER: D?
1st FIGHTER: Yes, D's on this side, the 5 digit one.
2nd FIGHTER: I also made a D.
1st FIGHTER: Yes, yes.
2nd FIGHTER: I don't know about a 5 digit one, but I got a D ready, too.
1st FIGHTER: Did you save its 4 digits?
2nd FIGHTER: Yes.
1st FIGHTER: So it'll happen if you press D.
2nd FIGHTER: No, you pressed it for 20 seconds each. It's not 20.
1st FIGHTER: I'll save this one like the other one.
2nd FIGHTER: Sure.
1st FIGHTER: Be alert. The targets are the tank and the Jeep Ranger.
2nd FIGHTER: Hit the tank or the Jeep Ranger, whichever you like. Maybe you should hit the tank. Get up. Get up. Have a look. Don't lose it, understand?
1st FIGHTER: I can't see where I should go. It's not visible. What should we do?
NARRATOR: The target vehicles are getting close.
[subtitles]
FIGHTER: Hurry with the rocket launcher! Take your positions. Go!
ARIF: Keep down.
NARRATOR: But just as they prepare to attack, a group of villagers appear right where they've planted the roadside bombs.
VILLAGER: [subtitles] Please let us pass.
NARRATOR: In the rush to get them out of the way, they miss the American transport. So they try to hit the Afghan police Jeep instead. The remote detonator fails once again, but someone had fired a rocket-propelled grenade. The police shoot back.
[subtitles]
FIGHTER: Now we're exposed!
FEDAYEE: Quick. Go!
FIGHTER: We're exposed.
FEDAYEE: You didn't shout. Is it burnt?
FIGHTER: It's destroyed.
FEDAYEE: If it's destroyed, where are you going? Where are you going?
FIGHTER: I really don't know, but let's keep moving.
NARRATOR: It soon becomes clear that their rocket attack entirely missed the Afghan police, who quickly sped away. And none of the roadside bombs exploded.
ARIF: [subtitles] If anyone trusts you to make a mine, they're a fool. Three guys with rockets should sit 20 meters away and shoot like this. Screw the mines! Mines are useless. We press the button and nothing happens. I told you not to shoot until I moved the kids.

Read more: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...#ixzz1csLOsxTk

The point here that you guys are missing is that it takes ammo ($$), training (?feasability when the sky is chopped up into grids for monitoring by satellite and drone as opposed to the Russkey era), and then perfection and practice of technique.

So now, I have addressed two tactics you guys have proposed... and given TWO practical examples of how they fail on teh battle field against the American technological might and superior training. The first being the sharp shooter that was highly trained and probably using a Lee Enfield, and the second being your proposal of remote detonation.

This example above also shows that these folks do attempt to move civilians, but may very well fail at times. The technology is no simple matter either.

i believe i have seen that documentary, that was actually a hezb i islami group they were following. after the failed ambush, they reported to their commander that there were multiple enemy deaths.

i am not claiming the taliban or others directly target civilians, i claim that many times they put civilians in danger and kill them when they set off suicide explosives. but that wasn't even my argument in this thread to begin with. it was that non suicidal attacks that put civilians in harms way are not necessary to fight the enemy as shown by the 80s jihad.

the taliban are not exactly reluctant to get themselves killed while facing an obviously superior enemy. what do u think happens when they fire mortars in the direction of a base or airport and completely miss? they expose themselves and get wiped out. if they are willing to risk their lives for an obvious futile attempt to hurt the enemy, u would think they would at least plan something a little more effective. if the taliban are not trained enough after 17 years of war, and 10 years of this one to figure out tactics to take advantage of their situation, thats their problem.

if they are willing to die on their missions, the most obvious and no brainer attack would be a drive by shooting. foreign soldiers just stand around with their fingers in their noses not expecting it. the fire would be concentrated, and a small group of foreigners could easily be taken out. instead they blow themselves up with a huge blast radius that injures or kills bystanders.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

But this is clearly false since there were ground troops from the Get go, the most devastating battles to the Taliban were within the first three months of the war.

There is no data to rebut..it's false correlation

here look it up yourself

Post hoc ergo propter hoc - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wrong. The supposed clear-and-hold and surge strategies are simple rejoinders that show you are still just grasping at straws. What is there to clear and hold and what is there to surge into if its already held? Its up to you to rebut Pape below. Once again, you simply saying its a false correlation does not make it so. You have to prove it. He did his job and collected the data and then derived a correlative conclusion. You have been unable to deal with that and are just evidencing that we have to rely on your opinion. You have not been able to adequately assess why his correlation is wrong in your view.

To reproduce my section on Pape's quote here you go:

"Today, Pape is focused on Afghanistan and, again, the key objective must be to reduce land forces. He sees the rise of attacks throughout Afghanistan as the direct result of the United States’ increasing
occupation of the Pashtun homeland. For the first couple of years of our occupation of Afghanistan, we stayed in Kabul. Then we began occupying the rest of the country in stages, reaching southern and eastern Afghanistan in late 2005, and bringing on a surge of suicide bombings. “As we move to the border of Pakistan, we’re seeing more of
the same,” he warns. “Seventy-five percent of attacks have been where there are Pakistani ground troops—our surrogate (PAGE 7).”

This correlates closely with Matt Hoh's assessment on the Afghan side of the border:

"Suicide attacks, IEDs, military and civilian dead or wounded—all rise commensuratelywith eachincrease in foreign troop or Afghan government presence. We misunderstand many ofthecauses of support for the Taliban. They didn’t wear sandwich boards or hand out pamphlets to win people. They are the Pashtuns. Most don’t want to rule the country. They just want to get rid of the occupiers."

[ScimitarXEdge]

[B]
Exactly, it was God's will which they should have accepted.

100% eh?

What about this verse?



"...but whoever is driven to necessity, not desiring nor exceeding the limit, then surely your lord is forgiving, merciful" (Surah al Anaam 6:145)

You have been exposed. You have 0 faith. You don't believe in Allah SWT. You don't believe in Islam. You are just a munafiq spending his days criticizing Islam and muslims but you're doing it in a very clever way so only few people would be able to see through your speech. But i'm not one of them. Thanks to Allah SWT, I can see clearly in what you say and how you act.

Is that so? Since you seem to have Trust in Allah(swt); why aren't you punishing the Moroccan women in France who are doing pornographic films (this was featured in the Arabic News last year)....Why are do you live under the authority of the kufar instead of going and fighting in Allah(swt)'s cause? ....Whats preventing you?