Freedom?

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
41

AAG the reason there are no replies is because the questions you pose are of a philiosphical (i can never spell that right) nature. Suicide bombers and freedom? They have free will to choose what they want. That includes taking the life of others. Every soldier makes that decision in a war. The only difference is we allow the murder of individual to take place just because of a few words. That is a seperate subject and one not to be discussed.

It has been discussed and decided, that when humanity works in a social setting we give up a great deal of our freedoms. Right now if we were sitting in a room and discussing the issue, i couldnt just go around and punch whoever i wanted just because i feel like it. If i could i would be free to do what I want. However society impose's restrictions on our freedoms. It is an every day occurence.

Now back on the original comment of suicide bombers. What is the difference between them, who take their lives to kill IDF or Israelis believing less palestinians will die, than soldiers who make a last stand to protect their home land? I know very well that American history is dotted with incidents where men have committed literal suicide for what they believe. I think it was the movie "Glory" that covered the suicidal attempt by Northern forces to take a forth in North Carolina during the civil war. By today's standards the suicidal death of these men would not be acceptable.

Or take the example of Galipoli (Cant spell that either) in turkey. The British and Aussies messed up the venture completely. More people died that day in world war 1 than imaginable. But it was one of the safest retreats in modern history. Those men who stayed back as the last to leave were described as Suicidal, because they took the chance of dying covering the retreat of others.

In both examples, the men did not care for their lives. They took the lives of other people to save the lives of their own people. That is glorified and called heros. When people do something very similar, modern thought calls it suicide bombers.

Tell me this AAG and the other americans who are reading this...If Al Qaeda had launched a frontal attack on American forces in Afghanistan, and the american forces had to retreat. Yet some stayed behind to cover the retreat of the rest of the forces. Knowing very well that the last stand would be suicidal, who they be as AAG says:

[quote]
**they decided life wasn't worth living... and they forgot to thank God for the LIFE that they were given.

So in my thinking, they became cowards, rather than heros.

And in my thinking..they disgraced themselves before God.
[/quote]
**

Or would they be heros, who died for their country and for their fellw country men?

Lastly this now belongs in general.

42

Depends on ones soul .. many people died not accepting cruel military dictatorships like Zia's but many became rich by arms smuggling and drug mafias in that era.. it depends how a person perceives freedom!

43

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Degas: *
Depends on ones soul .. many people died not accepting cruel military dictatorships like Zia's but many became rich by arms smuggling and drug mafias in that era.. it depends how a person perceives freedom!
[/QUOTE]

And the very same plundered the country under Bhutto. However the perception of freedom is universal. There is no respective difference of freedoms, otherwise then human rights would be subjective and what happens say in Saudi or Palestine would be acceptable, as it is their perception of what freedom should be.

44

Dear CM,

I wish i was as smart as you. To be able to explain things. Good Excuses.

AvgGirl.

45

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by AvgAmericanGirl: *
And if for one second? I WOULD BELIEVE IN HURTING ANOTHER?

well, to me. UnThinkable.
Un Imaginable.

And I would lay down my life for that belief.

[/QUOTE]

You think you are the only one who thinks like that. Those people in Palestine living in the terror everyday once thought like that too.

Now things have gone out of hands...that's the best way I can explain it to you.

46

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by CM: *
**In both examples, the men did not care for their lives. They took the lives of other people to save the lives of their own people. That is glorified and called heros. When people do something very similar, modern thought calls it suicide bombers.*

[/QUOTE]

Hi, CM! Your examples both use military personnel and defined objectives. Both sides knew they were actively engaged in combat. Even if one side is vastly superior, this is a morally a "fair" fight. The losers knowingly entering into a losing battle on these terms would certainly die as heros. The moment the target intentionally becomes civilians, the attackers lose all legitimacy and moral authority.

By the logic of your argument, the KKK could very well legitimize and justify going out and starting homocide bombings against people of color! (Sudicide bombing is an inaccurate term - a bomber's death is just a known byproduct of their stated goal and intent - the murder and maiming of as many human beings as possible - civilian or miliatary - hence, homocide would be correct.) Sorry, "the ends justify the means" just doesn't wash in this case!

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Shahji *
**It depends on what type of freedom u r talking about. If you're talking about freedom to run to the store and get your lolly pop then its not worth dying for but if it means your family & friends being killed and your respect taken away then is there another choice? *

[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately, this cannot be solved by just flipping a switch. Bombers have the freedom to pursue their goal - but, Israel has repeatedly reponded by bombing their homes. A homocide bomber identifies himself and his organization as known combatants. The organization defines itself as such when it claims reponsibility for an attack.
Therefore, they knowingly choose to put their family and friends at risk when they embark on their mission. Then, when the known response comes, they complain bitterly how they were again unfairly targeted.

Yet, Israel is targeting a specific known combatant, not intentionally targeting random civilians. Who has more moral authority - who was fairer - who showed more concern for innocents? The Israeli response or the bomber's attack?

Peace To All Who Read This...

47

Mrpockets, well said.

If you fight with Geneva rules, you could expect to be treated according to Geneva rules. Once you decide everything goes, then that can be used against yourselves as well.

48

I think u just confirmed my point, i wasnt talking about a particular country but individual circumstances of people facing a freedom fight---even if we are talking about israel or palistine, in their own way right or wrong they are fighting for their freedom and lives and that does'nt leave them with any other choice (not at this time), does it? Israeli's would be willing to die/kill for their lives and freedom and palistinians would be willing to die/kill for their lives and freedom. Sure peace & talks will be the way to go until then...

49

CM,

Point made.

However.

A heroic suicidal act for justice isn't someone who goes into a crowd of civilians and blows themselves up.

To me a heroic act is giving one self for the sake of others, to save others lives.

Not a plan to deliberatly kill as many noncombatants as possible.

What is going on now, isn't saving others lifes? Is it?

And that is what makes it morally wrong.

AvgGirl