2006-10-20 10:40:16 · 20 answers · asked by jimy86Leb 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
If I knew that was the only way to save the one I love, I would not hesitate for one moment.
2006-10-20 10:43:00 · answer #1 · answered by loufedalis 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
conflict is frequently a minimum of somewhat suicidal, however the favourite wars that the united kingdom and u . s . a . of america have chosen are plenty much less suicidal than the wars of the previous. possibly if the united kingdom and American forces did no longer have such an limitless defense force benefit then they does no longer have launched into those wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. possibly that's the shy away of having one in all those considerable defense force benefit: it makes it purely too tempting to start a conflict?!? different than that once you're in a guerrilla conflict, it appears that evidently the defense force technologies benefit isn't as vast an benefit as particular human beings might desire to have was hoping for. The Falklands conflict became greater deadly for British squaddies than the present conflict. The 2d WW became greater deadly. the 1st WW became greater deadly. think of status interior the front ranks in the process historical phalanx conflict, now that extremely is a suicide project!
2016-10-02 12:22:52 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Depends how the invading army acted. If they raped the women, killed the children, took all the food, poisoned the water supply? Oh yes, I would use all my US Army infantry skills to kill them off.
However, the US Army in Iraq has rebuilt the water supply that Saddam had destroyed, has improved the medicore electrical system that was there, We have provided massive amounts of food and medical supplys along with trained doctors and support staff to take care of them.
We have also supported the Muslems' religion by helping to rebuild some of thier Mosqes- so don't compaire them to the US Army if thats what you're thinking
2006-10-20 10:44:00 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
no i would not be a sucide bomber bc there are more armie people out there what good am i dead after i am dead they still can go after my loved ones but if i kill the guy first and i am still alive i can fight the other armies that will be coming.i only would kill anther person if they came to harm me and my family
2006-10-20 10:49:55 · answer #4 · answered by knowssignlanguage 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. (1) suicide is against the laws of God and is, therefore, a sin. (2) suicide bombers kill the innocent, therefore, have violated "thou shall not murder" (3) how can you save the one you love if you are dead. As it is wrong for muslims to murder christians, jews, and all other regilions, it is wrong for anyother regilion to murder muslims. There is a big difference in killing a solider who as part of his duty will be trying to kill you and killing people who have done you no harm.
2006-10-20 10:49:11 · answer #5 · answered by bettyswestbrook 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Becoming a suicide bomber makes no sense - if successful you kill a few of the enemy and yourself. On the other hand if you become a successful guerrilla you can continue to kill and rack up an impressive body count
2006-10-20 10:47:52 · answer #6 · answered by donald graham 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
What would you do if a Christian Army, or a Hindu Army, or a Jew Army attacked? Why does it have to be a Muslim Army?
2006-10-20 10:49:54 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nope. Not for ANY army. Quit picking on the Muslims.
2006-10-20 10:42:07 · answer #8 · answered by Max Marie, OFS 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
the same thing we will do If my town was invaded by a Christians army .
and this is what they call it terrorist .
2006-10-20 10:44:44 · answer #9 · answered by Alone 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hell,yeah!
2006-10-20 10:41:30 · answer #10 · answered by hopeless 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋