|
Inside the Mind of a
Suicide Bomber Part 2
Targeting
Civilians
by Yamin
Zakaria
London,
UK
Lies breed more lies;
projecting falsehood as truth necessitates the creation of more lies. For
example, to support the primary lie of While, the actions of
suicide bombers are made gratuitously violent by deliberately amputating them
from their political and historical context; concurrently, the actions of state
terrorists are sanitised by amplifying political and historical context, whilst
marginalising the sufferings inflicted upon their victims. Consequently this
helps their population to maintain their conviction of innocence; and helps to
project suicide bombers as mindless terrorists, cannot be negotiated with,
are Islamo-Fascists etc. and state terrorism is justified as simply a reaction
to that. Accordingly, when the
British, Israelis or Americans are killed by suicide bombers, they are
innocent victims of terrorism. The killings of much larger numbers of
civilians by an organised army in occupied People understand that suicide operations, by its nature are a retaliatory measure of last resort, simply due to its finality. Thus, the best efforts of the media and politicians have not been successful in projecting suicide bombings as an act of naked aggression. Instead, the media has focused in demonising it for its usage against civilians instead of confining it to military targets. Let us begin to analyse the suicide operations in the context of war. Suicide bombings are
indiscriminate This is an irrational
argument, as all bombs are indiscriminate; in fact the more powerful the bombs
are, the more indiscriminate they are, ergo the nation that has dropped more
bombs than any other in history, the Even if the dubious
claims of using precision or smart bombs were true, it would still be
immaterial, because the pilots are usually neither precise nor smart, when they
unleash their bombs over Baghdad and Kabul as shown by frequent reports of bombs falling on wedding parties,
families, civilian markets etc. They simply do not care and behave
as if they are playing a video game. One of the achievements of using
high-tech weapons is that the soldiers are desensitised, being at a distant as
they do not see the sufferings inflicted on their victims. If you desensitise soldiers who are already violent and
xenophobic, the consequence is likely to be horrific. Such a mindset that is far
more indiscriminate and insensitive to killings, at the wheel of a main battle
tank, piloting a fighter bomber or manning a machine gun at a checkpoint, and is
certain to be far more destructive than suicide
bombers!
We witnessed this
murderous mindset during the 1991 Gulf War. The allied soldiers resorted to an
orgy of killings on the road to Suicide bombers mainly target innocent
civilians. Those who are constantly lecturing others about targeting civilians use
powerful munitions that are bound to have high civilian
casualties! Hence, there is very little merit in the claim by the
Anglo-US-Israeli axis that they do not target civilians intentionally, while
they continue using powerful indiscriminate bombs, that have resulted in the
killing of tens of thousands more civilians than all of the suicide bombers
combined. Indeed, such claims are not only laughable but one of
the greatest hoaxes of this age! If
avoiding or minimising civilian casualties was a genuine concern, nations would
rush to prohibit the production, development and usage of the most powerful and
indiscriminate bombs e.g. Nukes, Daisy Cutters, mini-Nukes, JDAMS and their
equivalent, but they do not.
The Western and Israeli
forces kill civilians using their long range weapons with ease, whereas the
suicide bombers cannot retaliate in the same manner, lacking the weapons and
resources. Since the two opponents are
not equal, the weaker party will be forced to be opportunistic, seeking a
variety of targets with variable results, including unfortunately civilian
casualties. The weaker and more resource hungry party must do this for its
survival, as the only other choice it has is capitulation. So the methods of the
suicide bombers may seem to be more directed towards civilians, but this is a
consequence of their lack of resources and not their intent, whereas the armies
of the State Terrorists have an abundance of resources, intelligence and
weapons, yet inflict far greater civilian casualties, by simple logic this
imbalance leads us to a truth about the murderous nature of these states and who
is the real culprit that targets civilians.
In fact, historically,
the indiscriminate killing of civilians en masse was introduced with the arrival
of Air Forces, by the Western powers. The needless destruction of civilian
cities like What constitutes military
targets? Now let us examine the
distinction between military and civilian (non-combatant) targets.
Why should the armed forces be exclusively
targeted when it was the political establishment (civilians) in collusion with
the mass media that usually initiates and authorises war? Even within the
military forces, there are the soldiers sitting in their barracks or on holiday,
are like non-combatants. What about the non-combat military personnel like
doctors, cooks, cleaners, accountants and nurses? What about the commercial
firms that supplies the lethal arms?
Therefore, the
distinction between combatants and non-combatants is blurred in the context of
warfare, as substantial sections of civilian life contribute to the war machine.
Indeed, this was the conclusion of Sir Arthur Bomber Harris (Dresden, Cologne,
Hamburg etc), and Harry Truman (Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Tokyo Raids) both
targeted civilians en masse to sap the front line enemy forces effectiveness and
would shorten the war, so this is very much a lesson learnt from the West.
It could be argued further, that if the legitimate political authority can become target then so can the source of that authority. This is especially true for democracy, as when it goes to war, that must be by the definition of democracy be the peoples choice and hence responsibility. However, when the consequences of this choice visit upon the democracy, there is an immediate divorce between the people and the decision to go to war; suddenly the people are innocent. In war, the entire nation is a
legitimate target as they wage a war collectively as a nation. However, civilians or non-combatants are
off limits only due to the nations accepting this convention during war. Armies
would only target combatants in the battlefields in the past, away from cities
and towns. That has clearly changed over
the years especially with the invention of air raids from the First World War
(WW1). Ironically the very
nations that invented and practiced the targeting of civilians, as part of their
war strategies, are now lecturing others about targeting civilians, of course
that tends to surface only when their own civilians have been targeted, as
Iraqis, Afghan etc do not count in their estimation!
Final argument for excluding
civilians as a whole is that many of them are opposed to the war. However, the
same could be said for those who serve in the armed forces, who are also opposed
to the war. Thus, the armed forces as a whole should also be excluded by the
same argument then you might as well surrender. Furthermore, why ignore those
civilians who side with the war and helped to prop up the democratically elected
governments who chose war. Could one not equally argue using the same logic of including the whole
based on some? So the right to target all the civilians based on some who
supported the war and re-elected the same leader of war. When a
bomb is dropped by an allied Plane, does the bomb ask whether those underneath
it are for or against the invasion, and separate the respondents? Such absurdity
is not entertained by the West and neither is it entertained by those that
resist them.
Are civilians innocent or
guilty?
It is argued that non-combatants in war should be avoided because they
are innocent. This is not true; civilians are only excluded by mutual agreement
between nations, like an international convention observed by nations. Warfare
by its nature is reciprocal, one nation cannot unilaterally adhere to certain
standards regardless of what the other one does, especially a war that is fought
in self-defence. Even, the usage of the
term innocent or guilty is misleading, because, innocent and guilty is decided
by certain laws that one is subject to. If any citizen committed a crime, then
only the criminal could be punished not his entire family or tribe. In contrast,
international relationships between nations are dictated by mutual agreement and
conduct, not by any external laws. The use of the term international laws is
also misleading, as often these so-called laws flow in one direction; used by
stronger nations to subjugate the weaker nations. Otherwise, the
Likewise on battlefield there is no
principle that you seek the GUILTY soldiers only, i.e. those
who have killed your troops. If an army approaches, you can pre-empt an attack
by laying an ambush, kill all the soldiers without giving them an opportunity
and/or take them prisoner. They can then be dealt with according to the
prevalent international tradition and/or interests of the nation; the entire army is liable to attack
anytime. The issue of innocence or guilt
does not come into play, in war. Each nation sees the other nation in its
entirety as the culprit, just as the allies
did in WW2, the army is just the executive tool of war; both nations are
fighting collectively as a nation and collectively they are a target, unless
they have agreed to exclude a certain section of their societies.
No doubt, a nation is
like a legal entity, as it forms treaties and contracts with other nations. Acts
of the head of any state are binding upon the nation. As the heads of nations wage war or sign
contracts, the entire nation are responsible collectively, it has nothing to do
with individual innocence or guilt. Responsibility is collective in war and
peace. Every citizen of a nation and every citizen of a member of an
alliance is equally responsible and liable for the acts of the collective
(nation or alliance), even if he was not involved directly or did not act
personally. Only those who object strongly and separate themselves clearly are
excluded from the collective responsibility.
Of course morally speaking,
civilians and non-combatants should be off limits, but those who are lecturing
on this issue are the worst violators, just examine their track record of
civilian deaths! There is a simple solution, if you do not want your own women
and children to be targeted, then dont kill the women and children of other
nations. It is the nation who attacks the civilian population first that puts its own
civilians at risk, by making them a target of their victims. Clearly, it is the
British and the
Copyright © 2004 by Yamin Zakaria (06 September 2005) [1] http://www.americandaily.com/article/8664
*************************************************************************** {Invite (mankind, O Muhammad ) to the Way of your Lord (i.e. Islam) with wisdom (i.e. with the Divine Inspiration and the Qur'an) and fair preaching, and argue with them in a way that is better. Truly, your Lord knows best who has gone astray from His Path, and He is the Best Aware of those who are guided.} (Holy Quran-16:125) {And who is better in speech than he who [says: "My Lord is Allah (believes in His Oneness)," and then stands straight (acts upon His Order), and] invites (men) to Allah's (Islamic Monotheism), and does righteous deeds, and says: "I am one of the Muslims."} (Holy Quran-41:33) The prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "By Allah, if Allah guides one person by you, it is better for you than the best types of camels." [al-Bukhaaree, Muslim] The prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) also said, "Whoever calls to guidance will have a reward similar to the reward of the one who follows him, without the reward of either of them being lessened at all." [Muslim, Ahmad, Aboo Daawood, an-Nasaa'ee, at-Tirmidhee, Ibn Maajah] -------------------------------------------------------------------------- All views expressed herein belong to the individuals concerned and do not in any way reflect the official views of IslamCity unless sanctioned or approved otherwise. If your mailbox clogged with mails from IslamCity, you may wish to get a daily digest of emails by logging-on to http://www.yahoogroups.com to change your mail delivery settings or email the moderators at [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the title "change to daily digest".
SPONSORED LINKS
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
|
- [IslamCity] Inside the Mind of a 'Suicide' Bomber ... DDN
- Fwd: [IslamCity] Inside the Mind of a 'Suicid... Abdul Wahid Osman Belal
