Canadians Against Suicide Bombing

[cybercoma]

However, it would be equally reprehensible to target those wedding guests with a bomb dropped from a plane, a cruise missile fired from a ship, a squad with machine guns, a tank, a Blackhawk helicopter, or any other action that uniformed troops with an organized chain of command might do. It's the murder of the innocents that's a crime against humanity, not the choice of weapon.

I'd like to be able to say you left out the word intentional. In any war there are going to be civilians who come into harm's way; however, most nations take every reasonable precaution to avoid these types of terrible 'mistakes' from occuring.

Are "Canadians Against Suicide Bombing", or are "Canadians Against the Slaughter of Innocent Civilians"? It's the latter. And that's why specifying "suicide bombing" strikes me as self-serving.

I'd say, "Canadians Against the Intentional Slaugher of Innocent Civilians" would be a better description. That's not to say there are "Canadians For the Unintentional Slaughter of Innocent Civilians," it's just that it bears recognizing that accidentally wounding and killing innocents is not a crime against humanity.

One life is not anymore valuable than another -- since a lot of people confuse what I'm saying to mean that. It is equally terrible when either side kills civilians; however, intentionally targeting civilians for death or using them as human shields is an act that is much more heinous than causing regretable collateral damage.

[abcon99]

Call suicide bombing terrorist, why not. We are a rich country not likely to use that tactic. And I really don't give a rats arse about anyone who is not canadian, albertan, and conservative, so what other people think or feel is of no interest to me, besides having a good time when it comes to the chance to argue about what I think.

[Army Guy]

White Doors:

But we are not in a 'total war' army guy. We are in a tactical war with the strategic intent of empowering the masses over the fanatical tyranny of the few. When they belive that there is 72 virgins waiting for their oppressed sexual urges if they TRY to kill you - that is a formiddable enemy. It is an enemy that is more formiddable strategically - than tactically. That much has been proved by your 500 - 1 KIA ratio. That is not what will grant you victory.

Your 100% right our country is not at "total war" with the Taliban, And "we" are bound by our RO&E's and Canadian law and the conventions, they are not. that detail already gives them an advantage...And yes they are a formiddable enemy and they're form of attacks are stratigic in nature.

But my piont here is that making them Illigal or making all sucide attacks ILLIGAL will not change anything, it will not stop this type of warfare because of it's Stratigic value, and thier limited resources. Do we really think it will act as a deterent because it's a crime.

Think about it. The law is on your side - of which there is not little doubt - there is ZERO doubt. Your achilles heal is the moral equivellency that is being expressed here - of which you were earlier taking a part in. I now that is not your intent but I ask that you re-evaluate your opinion expressed here.

Yes the laws and convention are there for a reason, i understand that, and i'm not advocating the balant disregard for them. Just pionting out that not every nation follows them to the letter, and that history is full of examples of that including Canada. And that the conventions are treated more as a guide than actual law when convientent.

And the only difference between total war, and tactical war is the nations opinion and attitude . And there actions are driven by what they are willing to live with...As history would clearly show it is the victor that enjoys all the spoils.

Jezus dude. Just what you say here makes the act ILLEGAL. Please tell me what I am missing,. Last I checked passion does not equate justice.

I'll give you an example, Before the War museum was moved, in the Victory cross section there was a painting of a Canadian WWII corsair diving into a japanese detroyer, i can not remember the pilot's name but i do remember some of the story. his plane was badly shot up, and his last act was to dive his plane and himself into the destroyer, for his actions he was awarded the victory cross...Our nations highest award, a well deserved award and perhaps i'm the one confused here but how do we as a nation honour this man as a hero and then pass a law that will make all suicide killings ILLIGAL.

My opinion is it is a desparate form of warfare, use as a last step or measure or by an army that is desparate such as the Taliban..I've already stated that suicide bombings again'st civilian targets is ILLIGAL, and that i do not agree with those tactics..

There are people from the army.ca forums that would be very interested in what you have to say on this subject. Shall I invite them over to browse on your comments?

I've nothing to hide, and will take responsability for my opinions right or wrong, or perhaps just not express correctly. but yes invite them over, the more the merrier.

ARMY GUY is NOT the bad guy. If he is who he says he is, he is the knight in shining armour.

This converation is shameful because it has even gone this far without others agreeing that our soldiers are fighting the good fight. They are and if they lose - we all lose.

Thanks but i'm no knight in shining armour, there are more soldiers more deserving than me.

I don't think this was ever discussed, we are fighting the good fight, and we will not lose on the military front but perhaps polictical front.

[Wilber]

Hampton Gray

The action happened on the same day as the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and was the last VC awarded in WWII. There is a memorial near where he crashed and it is the only memorial to a foreign soldier on Japanese soil.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear bk59,

It seems that illegal combatants are those who attack their enemies without distinguishing themselves from a civilian population - in other words without identifying themselves as combatants. This is why we say dressing as a civilian and then bombing a military target is wrong - the bomber has not given their enemy the opportunity to recognize them as an enemy combatant.

The problem lies with the fact that the combatants in this case are not part of a 'regular army'. Not that anyone expects combatants nowadays do dress up in the old Britsh Red Tunics and stand in formation to fire volleys of grapeshot at one another, but they don't belong to a specific group, other than a 'mental' one. Partisans in WWII were much the same. One of the solutions the SS had for partisan activity was to shoot every male over the age of 15 in troublesome regions, and partisan activity always went down in that region.

Attacks by civilians against military targets are a little more palatable than attacks on civilians, but both cases should be the concern of the local gov't, as they are really internal legal issues. The problem with Afghanistan and Iraq is that no formal declaration of war was issued, so no real gov't could be held accountable for capitulation and then laws of occupation.