Remarks about Suicide Bombers - Page 2

TigaSefi · 23-01-2004, 13:28

It does give the suicide bombers some sort of argument to what they are doing is right when really it is wrong. It would be so much easier if each side were more inclined to deal with the problems peacefully. People are allowed to have opinions but should be more careful whether it should be known in the public or not if they hold public positions.

23-01-2004, 13:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ramrod

She effectively said that if she was in their shoes, she would do the same.*edit* or did she....?

"Or did she....?"

Well, actually, no, she didn't.

Unfortunately what she *did* say has now been buried under the mass of people (and tabloid newspapers) leaping in to put their own interpretations on her words to make political capital.

Those who claim that she was "supporting terrorism" or that she is "condoning suicide bombers" are just revealing themselves as cynical political opportunists and that is what is really disappointing about this.

alanf617 · 23-01-2004, 14:06

It's quite simple, either you believe that killing people is ok, in which case you can opt for a weapon to include yourself amongst the dead, or you believe that killing is wrong.

If a suicide bomber kills a few israeli army conscripts ( age 17 - 18 usually), is that the act of a reasonable person? If you think so, you won't object to Shipman, who probably also felt desperate from time to time.......

Ramrod · 23-01-2004, 14:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

"Or did she....?"

Well, actually, no, she didn't.

So what exactly did she say?

danielf · 23-01-2004, 14:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ramrod

So what exactly did she say?

Quote:

"If I had to live in that situation - and I say that advisedly - I might just consider becoming one myself."

'Might just consider' are the operative words I think.

Ramrod · 23-01-2004, 14:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielf

'Might just consider' are the operative words I think.

Well thats as good as saying she would. If she says she 'wouldn't consider' then we know where she stands because anything else falls short of that and implies that she would/might etc ie.acceptance, if not approval.

23-01-2004, 15:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by alanf617

If a suicide bomber kills a few israeli army conscripts ( age 17 - 18 usually), is that the act of a reasonable person?

But this raises an interesting issue for the times when military personnel are specifically targeted. Is it still terrorism if you actively target the military, who are attacking Palestine? Is there any difference between using a suicide bomber and a stealth bomber if you are attacking military targets only?

Ramrod · 23-01-2004, 15:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by dr wadd

But this raises an interesting issue for the times when military personnel are specifically targeted. Is it still terrorism if you actively target the military, who are attacking Palestine? Is there any difference between using a suicide bomber and a stealth bomber if you are attacking military targets only?

None whatsoever but the suicide bombers also target civilians. Thats why they don't have my support.

danielf · 23-01-2004, 15:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Well thats as good as saying she would. If she says she 'wouldn't consider' then we know where she stands because anything else falls short of that and implies that she would/might etc ie.acceptance, if not approval.

I agree it is not very far from it. Had she said something like 'I can understand what drives these people to resort to these measures' it would have been a different matter IMO.

Ramrod · 23-01-2004, 15:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielf

I agree it is not very far from it. Had she said something like 'I can understand what drives these people to resort to these measures' it would have been a different matter IMO.

Yep....anyhow, I really don't think that this was said with any malice or intended to support terrorism. Just a Kilroy-Silk'ism

downquark1 · 23-01-2004, 15:48

Ahhh
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3421669.stm
This is bang out of order.

danielf · 23-01-2004, 15:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by downquark1

Ahhh
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3421669.stm
This is bang out of order.

Yup, that is harsh...

Ramrod · 23-01-2004, 16:01

Yup, she should have been allowed to make a complete retraction and that should have been the end of it

23-01-2004, 18:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Well thats as good as saying she would.

No it isn't.

I might just consider punching you in the nose for saying that, but it doesn't mean that I actually *would*.

23-01-2004, 18:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ramrod

None whatsoever but the suicide bombers also target civilians. Thats why they don't have my support.

It's interesting to note that Israel's ambassador Zvi Shtauber told News 24 he welcomed the sacking.

"I understand it's a matter of free speech, but I expect her to express some sympathy for the victims of suicide bombers and not confining herself to confessing understanding for suicide bombers," he said.

Curiously enough, he doesn't seem to mention anything about sympathy for the *innocent* Palestinians who are harassed by the Israelis, who are having their land stolen whilst being forced behind a new "Berlin Wall", who are killed when Israel goes for "revenge attacks" with tanks and helicopter gunships against "terrorist leaders" and then sends in bulldozers to demolish the houses of the families of suspected bombers.

Whatever else you may say, Israel does *not* hold the moral high ground.