Talk:Suicide attack/Archive 1

message: I tried to define suicide bombing objectively, as well as to present two of the main ethical appraisals of it. A difficulty in discussing anything to do with "terrorism" is, of course, that many advocates persuasively maintain that their side isn't guilty of terrorism: their targets are legitimate, the women and children aren't innocent, and so forth.
It can be difficult to refute such arguments, while consistently justifying the military bombing of cities in declared war: e.g., Dresden, Hiroshima.
I don't think I have a handle on the issue. I just yearn for a world where no one would ever want to kill anyone!!! Ed Poor
:IMHO the specific act of suicide bombing is inherently neither terrorist nor non-terrorist.  It is only one tactic among many others.  The specific choice of target determines its terrorist nature. Eclecticology This is also follows the definition of terrorism used in the article linked.
----
I tried to add some reasons to suicide bombings as I don't think "they are Arabs" is enough really :-) It's badly written and probably not NPOV so feel welcome to edit it. Then it struck me, after watching a documentary about firearms in USA, are the suicide massacres in some way similar to suicide bombings? You know where someone shoots 1 - 2 dozen people and then commits suicide before the police comes. Like the Columbine (sp?) Highschool massacre and so on. --BL
----
I worry about the focus on Islamic or Arab in this article. Even if true (and I am not immediatley convinced it is) I would think that the description should not include ethnic linkages. After the description, a list of groups engaging in suicide bombing (and notes on cynide capisuls), and perhaps a note that most suicide attacts are Arab or Islamic (assuming it's true) with a brief note of explination - such as currently large number of Islamic people feel that their religion, values, and countries are under attack by the west, and are unable to respond in any other way. I note that Islam has very strong prohibitions against suicide, this probably should also be covered. - Karl
The article clearly states that suicide bombing is not accepted by most countries. I am recommending that as an addition, the quote from the Koran on prohibition against suicide also be added. In general, it should be quite clear that suicide bombing is not considered generally acceptable. This too can be stated. It <B>IS</B> important to say why people engange in suicide bombing. Given the rather strong comdemnation of it in the general description, no rebuttal is necessary. If one group is singled out, then the reasons that this group engages in suicide bombing is important. I don't think that the truth of these reasons needs to be debated, rather when listing the reasons, comments like the Palistinian people believe that ... An additional section on the results of suicide bombing, ie escellating violence, terroristic responsees by the victim countries, demonization, evaporation of public support... (again without justifications... with the obvious result of escelating results until someone backs down (Sira Lanka might be a good example here.)Karl
------
Removed para:
Israel does everything possible only to target known terrorists who happen to also be civilians or to be posing as civilians. An unbaised observer should conclude, based on the record, that Israel does all it can to avoid collateral damage among innocent civilians, a task made near impossible when terrorists use civilians as human shields, invade and take over religious shrines such as the Church of the Nativity, or flee to and hide in densly populated civilian areas while being pursued. The record unfortunately shows, on the other hand, that Palestinian bombers tend to strive to do all they can to seek out maximum casualties among civilians. Reviewing their attacks one finds they prefer crowded buses, shopping or dining areas and other places where one bomb will have maximum killing effect among innocent civilians. This effect is further enhanced by deliberate addition of shrapnel to the bombs, for instance by packing large numbers of nails or other such items around the explosives. Finally they also have been known to arrange for a second bomb timed to go off in the same area when emergency crews have gathered and are working to recover the dead and relive the wounded. Each of these tactics is carefully, deliberately calculated to maximize casualties among civilians. 
The above passage needs some serious NPOV work before the few sentences of good, non-redundant material within it can be included back into the article (much of the above is already stated in the article, albeit in a more - yet still not great - NPOV way). --mav
----
* The Japanese kamikaze bombers for example clearly had other alternatives, and were not all that interested in altering the policies of a country in the way suicide bombers from terrorist groups are.
As a general rule, when a writer says something is clearly so, they're usually expressing their own opinion. Otherwise they would provide the fact that they imply is so "clear". To be neutral (or even to make sense), the above comment should indicate what "alternatives" the kamikaze pilots had. (The only thing I can think of is just tolerating failure of their bombing missions due to inability to deliver bombs accurately enough.) --Ed Poor 20:34 Dec 4, 2002 (UTC)
: ah - I was under the impression that the japanese were using suicide bombing as a tactic in and of itself, from quite early in the war - before the failure of their bombing missions was so apparent. Similary, they were not doing that badly in the first part of the war, unless of course you are arguing that it was the suicide bombing that caused the japanese success. No matter. The purpose of the sentence was to try to show an example which did not include all the points listed. As opposed to discuss a point in detail. Karl
----
If an article edit is worth 1,000 comments, I put up Suicide bombing/temp to express my ideas on the current article. DanKeshet 21:21 Dec 4, 2002 (UTC)
----
Karl, I'm not trying to impose my views. If you have a reason for omitting my 3 paragraphs on military and "irregular" tactics, I'm happy to discuss it here on the talk page. Often when two people edit the same article rapidly, an "edit conflict" and one or both contributors lose their work. I would rather just come back later if you need to have the article to yourself for a while. --Ed Poor
: Ed - i like your changes as currently made Karl
Thanks, but I found an even better version by DanKeshet. So I replaced all my work and your work with his version. This will be my last edit for now. I want to let everyone else have a chance, and I don't want anyone to feel I am "imposing" anything. --Ed Poor
: it's fine, just as long as middle east warfare stays in other articles. You "imposing" things? Na! Who would ever do such a thing! :) Karl
::It's so easy for me to "detect" bias in others, but usually awfully hard to see my own bias. I tend to think I always write neutrally, but several times a week someone has to correct me -- then I see my error. I guess we all have to coach each other. Anyway, I'm giving this article a rest till tomorrow. Come take a look at Palestinian, which I just spent an hour completely re-writing. --Ed Poor
----
Haven't the article lost alot since a few dozen edits? Like the discussion about the typical suicide bomber, reasons (or theories on) why it exists, countermeasures and so on? And I don't understand why there aren't ANY text related to the Palestinian suicide bombers. It is in Palestine/Israel that most of them occur.
Anyway, I'll be back.. in a few days :-) Nice to see Ed too --BL
----
Oh dear, this is one of the most appallingly biased entries it has been my misfortune to see on Wikipedia.  After a heavy edit, it's still poor, but improved a little at any rate. I removed this para of Righteous Revenge rhetoric: 
The kamikaze attacks against American warships in 1944 and 1945 as Japan was already losing the war, only further antagonized the fighting men of America against the Japanese. American rage and firepower was unleashed onto the Japanese mainland by US bombers in massive fire-raid bombings that killed tens of thousands of Japanese citizens on Japanese soil. And when America finally dropped two atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in September of 1945 there was little mercy felt for the Japanese people because of their attack on America at Pearl Harbor in December 1941and culminating with the futile tactics of kamikazes as they lost the war.
because (a) it's difficult to see how Allied forces could have felt any more rage than they already did after the atrocities of the early part of the war (many of which were only coming to light in 1944/45 as Allied troops occupied areas where the Japanese had been in control - Burma, Phillipines, Borneo, and so on), (b) the bombing of Japan had been planned long before the kamikaze attacks began, and the bombing of Germany (which had nothing to do with kamikaze attacks) was in no way different, (c) because Pearl Harbor is completely irrelevant.
I have not the slightest intention of touching the Israli-Palestinian stuff, nor even of passing an opinion on it. I'll leave that one to those who take an interest in that conflict and are qualified to judge. The final S11 para reeks of righteousness, but I'll leave that one alone too, at least for now.  
Tannin 08:55 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)
:Hey, I deleted "perfidious".  :) -- Zoe
:: I didn't see "perfidious". Guess I was too busy swing that axe. Pity, the word has a nice ring to it. Now, if I could only work out how to get "perfidious" and "recalcitrant" into the same sentence, I'd go into politics. :) Tannin
----
Why would we bother to have any amateur assessments of its effectiveness?  If there's somebody who's done a military study of the circumstances in which it can or has been effective, we should include it, but barring that, I don't see the need for armchair analysis.  DanKeshet 16:29 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)
---------------------
"I tried to add some reasons to suicide bombings as I don't think "they are Arabs" is enough really :-) It's badly written and probably not NPOV so feel welcome to edit it. Then it struck me, after watching a documentary about firearms in USA, are the suicide massacres in some way similar to suicide bombings? You know where someone shoots 1 - 2 dozen people and then commits suicide before the police comes. Like the Columbine (sp?) Highschool massacre and so on. --BL"
Though not really a suicide bombing exactly, they both share the same essential feature of a terrorist act performed by a person with no regard to their own safety or future. The absolutely bizzare thing though, and something which really needs to be explained, here or anywhere, is why suicide bombings? If you don't care about living, couldn't you do better by running down the street with a machine gun?
----
The Eric Rudolph reference fits this article not at all; he obviously lived through it. - Hephaestos 04:23, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Homicide bombing includes both ppl that live through it and those that don't .... (mabey a seperate article for Homicide bombing is needed?) reddi 04:42, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I think another article would be a good idea, yes. - Hephaestos 05:44, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll try to do it if no one has objection ... unless someone else get the opprotunity before I do ... reddi 07:38, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Old discussion

message: Whenever I read Arab newspapers in English, they use the phrase "human bomb" (by analogy with "car bomb", "truck bomb", or "mail bomb").  Although I can't currently find it in any Arab papers, Here is Benazir Bhutto using it in The Indian Express.  DanKeshet 05:37, Sep 6, 2003 (UTC)
:www.arabnews.com, which I think is the leading english language Arab news site, uses "suicide bomber" exclusively. -BuddhaInside
:: The arabnews website search finds 20 articles that use "suicide bomber", and four that use "human bomb" (well, five, but that last one is talking metaphorically about Korean soccer player Cha Du-ri's skills on the field). Leaving out opinion/editorial articles, the count is twelve for "suicide bomber", two for "human bomb". -- Cyan 02:35, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I should add, then, that my previous statement was based on two Google searchs.  Googling for "suicide bomber" on arabnew.com site yields 263 hits, while Googling for "human bomb" on arabnew.com site yields zero. -BuddhaInside
OK, it's been a couple of weeks. I've unprotected the page. We can sit back and see what happens. If a major edit war breaks out, then it might have to be protected again. 
Note that the current revision is an old revision. Be sure to read the edit history before making major changes. Tannin
----
Some economists suggest that this tactic goes beyond symbolism and is actually a response to commodified or controlled or devalued lives, and consider family prestige and financial compensation from the community to compensate for their own life.
This is an interesting argument.  Does anyone have citation[s] for it? -- Pde 01:11, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

text: "delivered by a person who knows the attack will cause his own death" seems to get round the 'last ditch grenade attack' case - unless the solider deliberately includes himself in the grenade's casualties, in whcih case I would say it is a suicide bombing - although not the usual kind. 207.236.234.180 19:51, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Human bomb

message: Re:
:attempted to kill innocent Israelis using suicide bombers
Are we all agreed that the Israeli civilians whom Palestinian Arabs kill via suicide bombing are "innocent"? I daresay some pro-Arab writers believe that the targets of suicide bombings are not always "innocent" -- that's just their POV, of course, just as mine is that the civilians are "innocent" -- but it's still POV I figure.
Maybe we should use a different word. --Uncle Ed 22:38, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Innocent Israelis

message: [White house explination -- wordspy]
Wik continues to remove the accurate explianation of homicide bombing.
:The term was established by White House spokesman Ari Fleischer in April 2002. The White House Press Secretary used the term to state:
::"A bombing that intentionally kills another person; a suicide bombing in which the bomber's intent is to kill other people".  
::The use of the term is not as common as that of suicide bombing, although FOX News and the New York Post, among others, have adopted its use. 
JDR 20:07, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Accurate explaination removed

message: This probably deserves a separate article (which I fully expect will be bait for an edit war, sadly), but it should probably be noted somewhere that the Israelis are not the first to use house demolitions as a means of reprisal; They learned it from British forces during the Mandate, who used it on Arabs and Jews after attacks (by each side respectively). The British, in fact, went so far as to demolish much of Jenin in 1938 in reprisal for an Arab attack. -Penta 07:18, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  House demolitions 

message: Any evidence to back up the insinuation that the Palestinian Authority themselves directly support suicide bombers financially? --Admbws 14:26, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Palestinian Authority involvement 

message: "The Egyptian goverment fully supports these suicide bombing attacks, as reflected in an editorial in the Egyptian government daily newspaper Al-Masaa on 6 February 2004: 
We have no argument regarding the question of the legitimacy of these operations, because they are considered a powerful weapon used by the Palestinians against an enemy with no morality or religion...Even if during [a martyrdom operation] civilians or children are killed – the blame does not fall upon the Palestinians, but on those who forced them to turn to this modus operandi. 
Ultimately, we should bless every Palestinian man or woman who goes calmly to carry out a martyrdom operation, in order to receive a reward in the Hereafter, sacrificing her life for her religion and her homeland and knowing that she will never return from this operation. [2] "
Wouldn't this be a violation of the Camp David accords? WhisperToMe 01:36, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Egyptian government involvement 

message: While there may be a statistical correlation between attacks on civilians and suicide bombers (although I do not see any evidence for this) there is no necessary connection. There are plenty of examples of conventional forces attacking civilian populations in recent history, with little sanction from superiors. Troll Silent, Troll Deep 04:14, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the difference is that attacks directly on civilians are usually discouraged by conventional forces, and encouraged by those who sponsor/support suicide bombings.  Meelar 04:18, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

text: Generally discouraged by conventional forces? I'm not sure that's really true, or that it's generally true of those who support suicide bombing. For example, Japanese Kamikazee bombers attacked US military targets, while the US (who did not generally use suicide bombers) destroyed at least two whole cities of Japanese civilians. Of course, there is Vietnam as well, there is a lot of evidence to suggest relatively wide use of attacks on civilians by US forces, while Viet Cong never to my knowledge attacked US civilians on a large scale. Can you substantiate your claims? Thanks, Troll Silent, Troll Deep 04:25, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That's flamebait if I've ever heard it. →Raul654 04:28, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
Really? It seemed to me that a blatently POV statement equating suicide bombing with attacks on civilians was being proposed without any evidence. Troll Silent, Troll Deep 04:29, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

text: Well, do you want to specify? I am trying to make the distinction that this has not, historically, been the case - what do you suggest? Troll Silent, Troll Deep 19:48, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you looking for examples of Indian suicide bombings? I don't have access atm to any references but there are some very famous ones that resulted in some good movies coming out of India.  Check out the movie "Dil-Se" sometime.  It is based on a true story.  (But be prepared for the hokey Indian-style intermission dancing and singing.) - Tεxτurε 19:55, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

text: Also - this gives the impression that conventional forces do not engage in this, which I still dispute. Troll Silent, Troll Deep 19:49, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, your recent changes do indicate that conventional forces are not exempt from these activities.  I think that is sufficient since this is not about conventional forces and that inclusion of your first sentence changes no longer gives the wrong impression. - Tεxτurε 19:55, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Rules of war

message: May I point out, regarding the "suicide/homicide" bombing dispute that the latter term is, to the best of my knowledge, unheard of outside the United States.  In fact, this article is the first reference to it that I can recall.  To someone outside the U.S. and not especially familiar with U.S. media or politic life, the term "homicide bombing" seems to suggest a bombing which causes actual loss of life (not necessarily intentional, otherwise one would call it "murder bombing"), rather than merely destroying property or intended as a display of force.  In any case, it completely obviates the main characteristic that differentiates a suicide bombing from other forms of delivering the ordnance.
On learning its intended use as a synonim for "suicide bombing", one wonders why should someone feel the need to invent a new term, let alone one which is inadequate for the reasons given above, for something one already has a name for.
On a different topic, the article seems to be seriously lacking in references to back any of the various assertions made in it, especially regarding the "motivations" of the persons involved.  In particular, it implies that in general the suiciders follow personal moral or religious convictions and carry out their operations out of their own free will.  My understanding from conversations with security personnel knowledgeable about the subject is that, at least in some operations, their actors are recruited by way of threats and blackmail, counterbalanced by the promise of looking after their families.
Also, the assertion that Arab newspapers use the expression "human bomb" any less infrequently than other media is generally wrong, as can be verified by reading or searching their websites.  Of the news outlets I'm familiar with, only the English version of Al-Jazeera (which in recent years has discovered and actively exploited the potential of sensationalism) appears to use "human bomb" with any regularity (23 Google hits for "human bomber" site:aljazeera.net, against 23 for "suicide bomber"  site:aljazeera.net--although a number of the latter were quotations). Other mainstream Arab media, such as Arab News (same owner as British newspaper Sharqat Al-Awsat) and Gulf News, use "suicide bomber".  Note the correlation in the use of non-standard terms by sensationalist media both in the Middle East (Al-Jazeera) and North America (FOX News, as earlier mentioned by another contributor).
Lastly, in the list of countries where suicide bombings (does that preclude other forms of suicide attacks, btw?) have taken place, the United States only appears at the end of the list, between parentheses, in spite of it being the place where the most damaging suicide bombing in history has taken place.  Shouldn't it be listed alongside all the other countries?
:[note - new comment in response to above]
:I think the "homicide bomb" term was created by the Israelis and is commonly used by Israeli politicians - more so than American ones.  It was obviously chosen for political reasons -- to make the suicide bombers seem more distasteful, in response to Palestinian claims of their heroism and glorification of their deeds.  Of course, it's a failure with those audiences rhetorically, and most of the rest of the world asks the legitimate question of the poster above -- why come up with another term which is so obviously redundant and ignores the one thing that makes this kind of bombing different from ordinary (homicide) bombs.  The "human bomb" designation was used in a poem called "I am your human bomb" but remember this stuff is translated from Arabic so I don't know whether that is an accurate translation.  Nonetheless "human bomb" is obviously more specific than "homicide bomb."  --csloat 02:19, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: homicide bombing

message: Why is so little said about the Tamil Tigers? They are credited with over 200 suicide bomb attacks since 1987.
Compared with the number of attacks commited by Islamic Extremist groups which are credited with less than 100.
That's a big difference, over 200 attacks from a single organization against less than 100 attacks across several organizations. --Omar 10:30, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tamil Tigers 

message: What in this section is factually disputed ?   Lets fix it or remove the marker.  Lance6Wins 16:56, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Usage and related-terms

message: there should be a reference to Samson as the earliest testimony of a suicide attack. Winkelried may also qualify for the history section. dab 11:42, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: Yeah, the opening paragraph doesn't seem like a NPOV to me. Phrases like "many Muslims", "Many in the Muslim world" seem to be statements plucked out of thin air, and "Martydom Operation"? Thats straight from the Hamas PR handbook! "Western term" is horribly vague and sloppy, not like an encyclopedia article. Also, would it not be appropriate to link Iraq and Palestine? Mrfixter 17:40, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Link in United States as well.  19 suicide bombers on 4 airplanes killing thousands of people seems to be an event that should not be dismissed. Lance6Wins 19:50, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening paragraph