Suicide bombing unethical?

Question

Not when it kills civilians, obviously. But is using this against an opposing army against the "rules of war"? It seems to me that against a force with superior technology and weaponry, it's an understandable tactic.

Answer 1

First, there are rules of war, and we are obligated by treaty and law to abide by them. Second, no where in the laws of war is it prohibited to use suicide bombers. The (surviving) kamikaze pilots were not tried for war crimes because it wasn't a crime.

Against civilians is a differant thing.

Answer 2

if your homeland is under attack by a technologically superior force, then "dirty" terrorist like tactics may be your only hope of defending your family and your ideals.
in the film "independence day", will smith and Jeff goldblum defeat the aliens by hijacking one of their aircraft and making a "suicidal" attempt to infiltrate the aliens ship (which was their only home) and cause massive destruction, bringing down their infrastructure. their tactics were somewhat similar to those used on 9/11.

this is not to say that the 9/11 attacks were ethical. the suicide attacks that we see in the real world are often spurred by religious hatred (with many attackers being brainwashed into their actions) also almost all suicide attacks target innocent civilians.

the method of killing is of little consequence when compared with the motive. america uses the most advanced weaponry known to man, suicide bombers use their own bodies. either method could be viewed as ethical or unethical. the kiling of innocent civilians is much easier to identify as unethical. unfortunately, in war, innocent people die on both sides

Answer 3

Honey, if the people we are fighting engaged in the "rules of war", the war would already be over. The Japanese did it during WWII. It's a tactic that's all. It's not like we can say,"Hey we had a discussion and we think that suicide bombing is against the rules of war". It's war! Rarely are there rules and if there are, they are rarely followed.

Answer 4

While I reject violence ,what are people to do against superior forces are comitting violence against them.

Their choice is either to do NOTHING or to use whatever resourses are at hand to fight.

In this context ,suicide bombers are valid weapons.

Some like this poster contends it is unethical when the suicide bomber kills innocent civilians but that is a highly debatable position given the fact that BUSH'S ILLEGAL LIE BASED WAR has led to the slaughter of over 400,000 INNOCENT Iraqi men,women and children.

Major problems now exist in Afghanistan with the number of innocent Afghans being slaughtered by forces there.

The argument that these killings are "not intentional" is pure crap because the military knows A PRIORI that innocent civilians will be killed in their attacks.

Another interesting point to not is that WITHIN THE CON TEXT OF THIS DEBATE ONLY ,one has to have much more "respect" for a person who believes so thoroughly in what he/she believes that they are willing to blow themselves up.

Contrast this with the high flying bombers who just push a button and kill hundreds/thousands ? while they just generally fly away safely or the smart bombs fired from long distances that kill many without ever placing the "shooter" in harms way.

Answer 5

It's a massively stupid tactic. The Japanese tried it in WW2 and in a very short time they had lost their most experienced soldiers. The same thing is happening with terrorists; they're losing their most experienced people and gradually weakening themselves to the point where they can no longer accomplish the acts of destruction they were capable of only 2 years ago.

Answer 6

The morality of it, as per the Koran, is that it is 'haram' or an unforgiveable sin. Christianity also has questioned the forgiveability of suicide.

If it's against military targets? I don't really know if I could say it was or was not moral in my opinion.

It is STUPID, regardless of it's morality or ethical judgement.

However, it is being used against unarmed civilians, which means it is UNethical, immoral and illegal.

Answer 7

These laws are theoretically applicable only to nations which approve and consent to bind to them, usually in the form of international organizations or diplomacy, but in practice all nations are expected to follow the laws of war


the laws of war states that number one

combat without meeting certain requirements, among them the wearing of a distinctive uniform or other distinctive signs visible at a distance, and the carrying of weapons openly. Impersonating soldiers of the other side by wearing the enemy's uniform is allowed, though fighting in that uniform, like fighting under a white flag, is perfidy which is forbidden, as is the taking of hostages.

which suicide bombers dont do any of these

and

Parties are bound by the laws of war to the extent that such compliance does not interfere with achieving legitimate military goals. For example, they are obliged to make every effort to avoid damaging people and property not involved in combat, but they are not guilty of a war crime if a bomb mistakenly hits a residential area.

By the same token, combatants that use protected people or property as shields or camouflage are guilty of violations of laws of war and are responsible for damage to those that should be protected.

which suicide bombers do a lot of

also

Well-known examples of such laws include the prohibition on attacking doctors or ambulances displaying a Red Cross, a Red Crescent or other emblem related to the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement (this sometimes leads to confusion when the British military is involved, where certain regiments use the English flag, which is also a red cross). It is also prohibited to fire at a person or vehicle bearing a white flag, since that indicates an intent to surrender or a desire to communicate. In either case, the persons protected by the Red Cross or white flag are expected to maintain neutrality, and may not engage in warlike acts; in fact, engaging in war activities under a white flag or red cross is itself a violation of the laws of war known as perfidy.

which they fire AT our ambulances

this applies to terrorists

terms of 16 to 30 years.

Spies and terrorists may be subject to civilian law or military tribunal for their acts and in practice have been subjected to torture and/or execution. The laws of war neither approve nor condemn such acts, which fall outside their scope. However, nations that have signed the UN Convention Against Torture have committed themselves not to use torture on anyone for any reason. Citizens and soldiers of nations which have not signed the Fourth Geneva Convention are also not protected by it (Article 4: "Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it".), whether they are spies or terrorists. Also, citizens and soldiers of nations which have not signed and do not abide by the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions are not protected by them. (Article 2, of both Conventions: "[The High Contracting Parties] shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to [a Power which is not a contracting party], if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof". note: emphasis added)

i hope that answers your questions it is a really great question i thank you for asking it

Answer 8

Suicide bombing unethical? But not when it kills civilians? When it kills civilians it IS ethical? Have you thought this through at all?

Answer 9

There are no rules of war. Ethics and war do not relate or coexist. Its kill or be killed. One side will win(or a tie i.e. Korean War). Yeah, suicide bombing is sick and twisted to some people's perspective. But, those people are doing it because of religion. They love their god that much, where they are willing to die for their beliefs. Just appreciate what you got and be happy to be alive i guess.

Answer 10

Suicide bomber, B52 bomber , what's the difference. The B52 causes more damage and the pilot goes home to bed.