Libyan Suicide Bomber!! Hero?

KristallNacht wrote:muj is actually just a shortening

My point is that you call them that, when Mujihadeen stands for "Strugglers", a type of hero in the Islamic culture.

I don't think you should continue calling them that anymore, especially since many troops in Afghanistan have been told to stop calling them it.

stop calling them mujihadeen?

um...no

its the term used to reference foreign fighters in the country. Those that entered the country to wage 'holy war' on the coalition.

KristallNacht wrote:stop calling them mujihadeen?

um...no

its the term used to reference foreign fighters in the country. Those that entered the country to wage 'holy war' on the coalition.

Actually, you not being stationed in the Middle East, and me, who talked to a Marine Major this past Monday and he, who is charge of a large number amount of operations under his commanders in the Helmand Province, was told by his commanders to tell his men to stop calling them Mujihadeen for the reason I pointed out.

It was a battle, not an attack on a civilian population. As scary as Japanese kamikazes were, they were not evil because they were willing to sacrifice their lives.

Middle-Eastern suicide bombers aren't bad because they commit suicide to kill other people or because they pray. They're bad because they target civilians.

Pretty much what I said in the first post, I just used examples of where it has been used before, and not be branded evil.

The Talibian use it on civilian heavily populated zones to cause the most harm possible, by killing as many innocent bystanders to weaken their morale and incite fear so they feel vulnerable, even with the Allied forces protecting them.

The Libyians used it on a military target to open it up to an attack, in a war where they have always been a disadvantage, to give them a chance of pushing Gaddafi forces back.

Same method, two completely different reasons why there done.

He should have worn a uniform, but otherwise, this was hardly a terrorist attack. I don't agree with his method, but it is certainly not on the same level as terrorists or other insurgent forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Even IEDs that are technically meant for military targets are placed in the open road where civilians congregate. They are used because of the psychological effect that these bombs have, not because they are particularly effective.

Ruski wrote:

Actually, you not being stationed in the Middle East, and me, who talked to a Marine Major this past Monday and he, who is charge of a large number amount of operations under his commanders in the Helmand Province, was told by his commanders to tell his men to stop calling them Mujihadeen for the reason I pointed out.

your point still doesn't really make any sense.

and Officers and Enlisted are in different territory when it comes to that kind of thing. Officially, they won't be referred to that anymore, if they ever were. but unofficially, we'll stick with an identifiable name. without a name, they're just 'middle-easterners' or 'iraqis' or 'afghanis' giving them a name like 'muj' helps keep their identity seperate from civilians, reducing the likelihood of coalition forces killing innocents.

KristallNacht wrote:muj is actually just a shortening.

and they don't attack civilians anyway. They attack military forces.

when was the last time you heard of an IED or any similar thing killing civilians in iraq or afghanistan?

I wouldn't call an IED attack "terrorism" either. Terrorism is killing innocent people for the specific purpose of creating fear, in order to influence public opinion and public policy. Planting dirty bombs is unethical, but it isn't terrorism. Using flame throwers to burn your enemy alive, and scare the shit out of them, is a form of psychological warfare, but it still isn't terrorism, given that it is meant to influence military action specifically...

IEDs are used just as much to create fear in the local civilian populace supporting us and our civilians back home as it is to inspire fear in soldiers. Perhaps even more so.

I think he is a 'hero' because the motives behind the attack were different than, say, Al-Qaeda.

Nocbl2 wrote:I think he is a 'hero' because the motives behind the attack were different than, say, Al-Qaeda.

Which is ironic. From a certain point of view, Al Queada has the exact same motives, ie to cast out the oppressive rulers.

TNine wrote:

Nocbl2 wrote:I think he is a 'hero' because the motives behind the attack were different than, say, Al-Qaeda.

Which is ironic. From a certain point of view, Al Queada has the exact same motives, ie to cast out the oppressive rulers.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

They have the same motive, but this one is fighting for a good cause, I guess?

Terrorists do things to cause fear, this guy just used it to make an attack possible.