Could Suicide Bombers be the Saints of the 21st Century?

[MumboJumbo]

You forgot one little thing:

They die committing murder. Automatic disqualification.

Define: murder

 

[MumboJumbo]

One can’t be a Saint if they disobey God’s laws and commandments (murder), even if they think they are doing God’s will.
Just a thought

Pax

Thou shalt not kill

or

Thou shalt not murder

Many suicide bombers would have said they killed in defense of their land.

 

[kalt]

Could Suicide Bombers be the Saints of the 21st Century?

They are willing to die for what they believe in. That is a requirement for sainthood.

They are doing what they do so others will benefit. That’s another requirement for sainthood.

They believe that God has chosen them for that mission. That’s another requirement for sainthood.

Who would kill themselves for a purpose beyond themselves other than someone who might be called a saint?

Osama Bin Laden IS a terrorist because HE is not willing to die. But he does order other people to their deaths. What if his followers said, “Why don’t you go first!” It seems like the guy in charge is never willing to sacrifice what he demands of others. But then he is the one who gets the publicity and the saint gets the death sentence. Just like in real life.

Suidice and murder = sainthood

There’s something wrong with that equation.

 

[ralphinal]

If I take a gun and kill someone intent on attacking me or my family, I was acting in defense. It is not murder, but I did kill.

If I take a bomb and use it to kill enemies intent on killing me or others, I have acted in defense. It is not murder, but I did kill.

If I take a bomb and kill innocent women and children for the sake of causing fear and shock, I have committed MURDER. There is no spiritual or ethical defense for it. I do not care how they justified it in their little heads.

History has shown, by and large, that attacking civilians does not lower the resolve to fight. It has the opposite effect.

If these Muslims who feel the need to kill unarmed women and children are heroes in your mind, you have issues.

 

[qui_est_ce]

No, this is a perfectly valid scenario because it bring into question whether the act of suicide bombing/attacks can be justifiable given one’s circumstances. You seem to be saying that Samson doing a suicide attack was okay because he was treated very poorly.

So I’ll ask again; if someone went through the hardships that Samson did, whether they be Christian, Muslim, Jew, or Atheist, would they be justified in committing a suicide bombing/attack in a public forum?

This is a very good question.

My answer from a Christian POV is there is no justification for a Christian to involve himself in murder/suicide in a public forum. The Sampson analogy is invalid because under the OT, the law was imperfect. Jesus came to fulfill the OT law. Jesus bore our sins and injustices. When we are mocked in publc places,(as Jesus was) we are called to turn the other cheek and forgive.

 

[BRIT72]

Could Suicide Bombers be the Saints of the 21st Century?

They are willing to die for what they believe in. That is a requirement for sainthood.

They are doing what they do so others will benefit. That’s another requirement for sainthood.

They believe that God has chosen them for that mission. That’s another requirement for sainthood.

Who would kill themselves for a purpose beyond themselves other than someone who might be called a saint?

Osama Bin Laden IS a terrorist because HE is not willing to die. But he does order other people to their deaths. What if his followers said, “Why don’t you go first!” It seems like the guy in charge is never willing to sacrifice what he demands of others. But then he is the one who gets the publicity and the saint gets the death sentence. Just like in real life.

Anyone thinking of becoming a suicide bomber,** PLEASE DON’T!**

The first thing that will happen when the lights go out is, you will wake up in hell.

 

[Awake]

This is a very good question.

My answer from a Christian POV is there is no justification for a Christian to involve himself in murder/suicide in a public forum. The Sampson analogy is invalid because under the OT, the law was imperfect. Jesus came to fulfill the OT law. Jesus bore our sins and injustices. When we are mocked in publc places,(as Jesus was) we are called to turn the other cheek and forgive.

True, the law might have been imperfect, but morality always stays the same, right? Would God have given Samson the strength to do something so immoral?

I guess a valid counter-argument would be that Samson’s actions were immoral, but he did it under his last ounce of strength on his own accord without receiving any sort of superhuman strength from God.

 

[MumboJumbo]

If I take a gun and kill someone intent on attacking me or my family, I was acting in defense. It is not murder, but I did kill.

If I take a bomb and use it to kill enemies intent on killing me or others, I have acted in defense. It is not murder, but I did kill.

If I take a bomb and kill innocent women and children for the sake of causing fear and shock, I have committed MURDER. There is no spiritual or ethical defense for it. I do not care how they justified it in their little heads.

History has shown, by and large, that attacking civilians does not lower the resolve to fight. It has the opposite effect.

If these Muslims who feel the need to kill unarmed women and children are heroes in your mind, you have issues.

General Sherman of the American Civil War, is considered the first modern general in that he knew citizens are the ones who back up the military.

War on military and civilian targets are valid and considered "total war!

Suicide bombers do more damage by terrorizing the “enemy” then by the actual damage they do in taking of human life.

Whole armies have been slowed to a halt while trying to take towns because of non-military snipers.

Modern gang members in the US are still considered civilian though they really should be called terrorists and should be treated as such. Part of their effectiveness is that the law hasn’t caught up to define the modern gang member in modern terms.

If these Muslims who feel the need to kill unarmed women and children are heroes in your mind, you have issues

Define: hero

 

[ralphinal]

General Sherman of the American Civil War, is considered the first modern general in that he knew citizens are the ones who back up the military.

War on military and civilian targets are valid and considered "total war!

Study the bombing of civilians during WWII. Besides, Sherman is as bad or worse than bin Laden. He allowed for and encouraged rape and murder of women and children for no reason other than he could.

Suicide bombers do more damage by terrorizing the “enemy” then by the actual damage they do in taking of human life.

Really? Then why is Isreal still there? Why are there still Sunni and Shia Muslims? The fact is that these attacks, after the initial shock has worn off, only solidify the resolve of those attacked.

Whole armies have been slowed to a halt while trying to take towns because of non-military snipers.

Totally different argument. Those are snipers taking on MILITARY targets. Most of the suicide bombers are cowards who attck those who cannot defend themselves. The snipers that you mention shot at men who could shoot back. I am troubled by the fact that you do not see the difference.

I think you are thinking of the Battle of Stalingrad. Do not discount the fact that the winter had a lot to do with the Gremans stopping. That and the fact that they HAD to hold that town as a majority of Russian tanks were produced there.

Modern gang members in the US are still considered civilian though they really should be called terrorists and should be treated as such. Part of their effectiveness is that the law hasn’t caught up to define the modern gang member in modern terms.

No, the largest part of their effectiveness is an unwillingness within a subculture to help law enforcement work against them. Besides, a majority of the most violent gang related crime is done against other gangs.

Define: hero

A hero is someone worthy of respect, admiration, and emulation. I will never respect someone who says “I will kill children until you agree with me.” I will always respect someone who says “I will die to protect those who cannot protect themselves.”

Can you not understand?

 

[qui_est_ce]

True, the law might have been imperfect, but morality always stays the same, right? Would God have given Samson the strength to do something so immoral?

I guess a valid counter-argument would be that Samson’s actions were immoral, but he did it under his last ounce of strength on his own accord without receiving any sort of superhuman strength from God.

I presume Samson’s strength came from God, because Samson called on Him, and it seems God answered his prayer. Also, it says God allowed his hair to grow back while in prison. The Philistines were the enemies of Israel. He died saving Isael from their enemies, the Philistines. God was punishing the Israelites for worshipping Baal.

To go even deeper in the imagery, Samson is prefigures Jesus:

Judges 13:24-25
The woman bore a son and named him Samson. The boy grew up and the LORD blessed him;

Juges 16:25
When their spirits were high, they said, “Call Samson that he may amuse us.” So they called Samson from the prison, and he played the buffoon before them.

We need to be careful when using the OT to explain facts. The OT is Salvation History viewed through the eyes of a primitive, developing nation. It is not a science book or a history book. It is the story of the Jews emerging into a relationship with God. God was given human attributes, like “angry”, or “sorry.” We know God is never changing, that He is a loving God.

While I believe the OT stories are true, it is not GOD who punishes, it is they who punish themselves. It’s their way of explaining occurences. Samson sinned by divulging the source of his strength (which was really God, not his hair). He had to pay for his sin with death, but in his death he saved his people (until the sinned again!

 

[MumboJumbo]

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon1.gif Re: Could Suicide Bombers be the Saints of the 21st Century?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MumboJumbo forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
*General Sherman of the American Civil War, is considered the first modern general in that he knew citizens are the ones who back up the military. *

War on military and civilian targets are valid and considered "total war!​

Study the bombing of civilians during WWII. Besides, Sherman is as bad or worse than bin Laden. He allowed for and encouraged rape and murder of women and children for no reason other than he could.

I’ve never heard of Sherman doing any of that.

Quote:
Suicide bombers do more damage by terrorizing the “enemy” then by the actual damage they do in taking of human life.​

Really? Then why is Isreal still there? Why are there still Sunni and Shia Muslims? The fact is that these attacks, after the initial shock has worn off, only solidify the resolve of those attacked.

Why do people move out of gang infested neighborhoods?

Quote:
Whole armies have been slowed to a halt while trying to take towns because of non-military snipers.​

Totally different argument. Those are snipers taking on MILITARY targets. Most of the suicide bombers are cowards who attck those who cannot defend themselves. The snipers that you mention shot at men who could shoot back. I am troubled by the fact that you do not see the difference.

Check out: “franc tireurs” or “resistance fighters”.

I think you are thinking of the Battle of Stalingrad. Do not discount the fact that the winter had a lot to do with the Gremans stopping. That and the fact that they HAD to hold that town as a majority of Russian tanks were produced there.

No. I was thinking of WW1 and how the franc tireurs slowed down the Germans invading Belgium. The German Army treated them as terrorist. Same with the resistance fighters in occupied France.

Quote:
Modern gang members in the US are still considered civilian though they really should be called terrorists and should be treated as such. Part of their effectiveness is that the law hasn’t caught up to define the modern gang member in modern terms.​

No, the largest part of their effectiveness is an unwillingness within a subculture to help law enforcement work against them. Besides, a majority of the most violent gang related crime is done against other gangs.

Ask the people of New York, Los Angeles, Chicago…

Quote:
Define: hero​

A hero is someone worthy of respect, admiration, and emulation. I will never respect someone who says “I will kill children until you agree with me.” I will always respect someone who says “I will die to protect those who cannot protect themselves.”

Can you not understand?

“A hero is someone who fought a war, so that some rich guys kid didn’t have to!”

Everyone else had a signature, so I thought I needed one too.

Ralph

 

[ralphinal]

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon1.gif Re: Could Suicide Bombers be the Saints of the 21st Century?

I’ve never heard of Sherman doing any of that.

I suggest you read more about his campaign in the South.

Why do people move out of gang infested neighborhoods?

Because they can. Why do some stay?

Check out: “franc tireurs” or “resistance fighters”.

No. I was thinking of WW1 and how the franc tireurs slowed down the Germans invading Belgium. The German Army treated them as terrorist. Same with the resistance fighters in occupied France.

Again, they attacked soldiers. They did not go into Germany and kill babies.

Ask the people of New York, Los Angeles, Chicago…

“A hero is someone who fought a war, so that some rich guys kid didn’t have to!”

Wrong. Not even close. A fireman can be a hero. A cop can be a hero. A man on the street who helps another is a hero.

A suicide bomber is NEVER a hero. Period.

I doubt we would be having this conversation if you had lost someone to one of these devils.

 

[MumboJumbo]

Because they can. Why do some stay?

Do some research on “white flight”. They’re not leaving to move into mansions. They’re leaving because they are terrifyed.

Again, they attacked soldiers. They did not go into Germany and kill babies.

The Germans killed civilians in retaliation. Though they were never really considered terrorist because of the “soldier” label. Soldiers can get away with a lot more than civilians apparently.

Wrong. Not even close. A fireman can be a hero. A cop can be a hero. A man on the street who helps another is a hero.

A suicide bomber is NEVER a hero. Period.

I doubt we would be having this conversation if you had lost someone to one of these devils.

. A fireman can be a hero.

and he’s paid good money to be a hero!

A cop can be a hero.

and payed good money too.

A cop can also show up after the shooting and pretend “to serve and protect”. I’ve run into a few of these. Their always hanging back.

You are labeling “suicide bombers” as a terrorist activity. During the Vietnam War, children would go into American camps to get the sympathy of soldiers. When the soldiers weren’t looking, these same children threw hand grenades at them. Now since those were civilian children, they could be considered terrorists. But they also could be considered enemy soldiers out of uniform. Or maybe just “bad boys”!

The suicide part of suicide bomber is one who is almost certain to be killed when the explosive goes off to kill his target/s. I don’t see how this makes him a coward. The examples you gave above (heroes) were certain to create the impression of people saving lives. But military actions of civilians, (resistance fighters or “terrorists”) can save civilizations by preventing the enemy from winning a total “hearts and minds” victory. The war is not lost as long as someone is willing to fight back.

Maybe that’s the definition of hero you were looking for. The one who is willing to continue the fight to the end, and will not compromise his beliefs.

 

[ralphinal]

Do some research on “white flight”. They’re not leaving to move into mansions. They’re leaving because they are terrifyed.

White flight is not what you think it is. White flight is the movement out of major cities and into suburbs of whites so that they do not have to live next to minorities. IT has nothing to do with fear and everything to do with racism and classism.

The Germans killed civilians in retaliation. Though they were never really considered terrorist because of the “soldier” label. Soldiers can get away with a lot more than civilians apparently

No, they are not terrorists, they are run of the mill war criminals. See, the situation of the person makes the definition. A soldier is not a terrorist. That does not mean that he is not guilty of crimes. It means that he is working in an official capacity and recognized by the government.

and he’s paid good money to be a hero!
and payed good money too.

You must be very young if you think that these men and women are paid a wage that justifies the risk. “good money” is a relative term, I know, but they are not paid “good money.”

A cop can also show up after the shooting and pretend “to serve and protect”. I’ve run into a few of these. Their always hanging back.

SO? There are more good police than bad ones.

You are labeling “suicide bombers” as a terrorist activity. During the Vietnam War, children would go into American camps to get the sympathy of soldiers. When the soldiers weren’t looking, these same children threw hand grenades at them. Now since those were civilian children, they could be considered terrorists. But they also could be considered enemy soldiers out of uniform. Or maybe just “bad boys”!

They were terrorists. If they were enlisted in the Army of North Vietnam, and were out of uniform, they are underdifferent rules than ones in uniform. I suggest that you study the rules of things like that. A soldier caught behind enemy lines in uniform becomes a prisoner. One out of uniform can be executed without regard to the Geneva convention.

The suicide part of suicide bomber is one who is almost certain to be killed when the explosive goes off to kill his target/s. I don’t see how this makes him a coward. The examples you gave above (heroes) were certain to create the impression of people saving lives. But military actions of civilians, (resistance fighters or “terrorists”) can save civilizations by preventing the enemy from winning a total “hearts and minds” victory. The war is not lost as long as someone is willing to fight back.

They are cowards because they attack those who cannot or will not defend themselves. I cannot understand why you do not grasp that. If a man attacks me, he is attacking a 6 foot tall, 200 pound man with martial arts training who lives in a right to carry state. I will respond differently than a 5 foot tall 80 pound woman who is 70 years old. Why is that hard to grasp? Do you like the idea that blowing up women and children is a good one?

Maybe that’s the definition of hero you were looking for. The one who is willing to continue the fight to the end, and will not compromise his beliefs.

That can be a hero, too. However, if you are too ignorant of the universe to grasp how killing innocent women and children makes you the lowest form of dung possible, I suggest that you grow up some. Get out an see how these “heros” of yours hurt the innocent and do more harm than good for their cause.

 

[empurpledsoul]

If I take a gun and kill someone intent on attacking me or my family, I was acting in defense. It is not murder, but I did kill.

If I take a bomb and use it to kill enemies intent on killing me or others, I have acted in defense. It is not murder, but I did kill.

If I take a bomb and kill innocent women and children for the sake of causing fear and shock, I have committed MURDER. There is no spiritual or ethical defense for it. I do not care how they justified it in their little heads.

History has shown, by and large, that attacking civilians does not lower the resolve to fight. It has the opposite effect.

If these Muslims who feel the need to kill unarmed women and children are heroes in your mind, you have issues.

Jesus knew that there was an intent to murder him. What example did he give? What did he do when the soldier came for him and Peter ‘defended’ him by cutting off the soldiers ear?

Even Christians don’t get it. Murder is taking the life of another, war is murder, even if your life is threatened as Christs was there is no justification for picking up a weapon and seeking violent retribution. The cure isn’t violence. It is faith in God and the power of Love. Even to the point where you ‘loose’ and lay down your life in the flesh. The Amish are the pure example of understanding what God gave in Jesus.

And Samson was before Jesus. The Word clarifies what real power is in the world, it isn’t man’s propensity to use violence, even for ‘self defense’, it is God’s perfect Love. It moves mountains. It is not the romantic weak love that humans think they have to give to one another even while using violence to ‘defend’ their country, their land, their home. This earth is not eternal, every person must die.

There may be a natural reaction to ‘fight’ with our bodies or hands when being attacked, like a swimmer fighting against the waters they are drowning in, and if in this moment their attacker dies then that is not murder, it is truly self defense. But anything more, where one has to take deliberate steps, pick up a weapon and seek to DESTROY the one they are threatened by, when they believe in politics on earth that say there is ‘intent’ to do harm (often without proof) by another nation so they are justified to go in full blazes and start killing, it is all murder in the eyes of God.

Thou shalt not kill is not what the original commandment states (for we kill animals for our survival). Thou shalt not murder is the original command, this is the statement that human beings are NOT given any power or authority or justification to take another human life for any cause at all. That this was not understood was one of the purposes in sending Jesus who would clarify this perfectly and give us the Word which if you have truly planted it in your heart, would reveal to you that the very thought of murder even in self defense goes against the Spirit of Truth in your heart and soul. When you are truly filled with the perfect love of God you simply can not take a life for any cause on earth.

 

[srlucado]

Even Christians don’t get it.

Thanks for the lecture, Mr. Tolstoy. (If you’re trying to tell me that I don’t personally possess the forgiveness that Jesus has, I already knew that.)

But to actually answer the original question, I guess your reply would be “no.”

 

[MumboJumbo]

Re: Could Suicide Bombers be the Saints of the 21st Century?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MumboJumbo
Do some research on “white flight”. They’re not leaving to move into mansions. They’re leaving because they are terrifyed.
…

White flight is not what you think it is. White flight is the movement out of major cities and into suburbs of whites so that they do not have to live next to minorities. IT has nothing to do with fear and everything to do with racism and classism.​

Try and tell that to someone who is stuck in one of those neighborhoods.

Quote:
The Germans killed civilians in retaliation. Though they were never really considered terrorist because of the “soldier” label. Soldiers can get away with a lot more than civilians apparently
…

No, they are not terrorists, they are run of the mill war criminals. See, the situation of the person makes the definition. A soldier is not a terrorist. That does not mean that he is not guilty of crimes. It means that he is working in an official capacity and recognized by the government.​

It is nice that we have definitions for everything. "I’m sorry maam! Your husband wasn’t killed by a terrorist, he was killed by a war criminal and therefore you are not entitled to any monetary help. So sorry!

Quote:
and he’s paid good money to be a hero!
and payed good money too.
…

You must be very young if you think that these men and women are paid a wage that justifies the risk. “good money” is a relative term, I know, but they are not paid “good money.”​

In Chicago, the lines of people waiting to join the police department are blocks long. Maybe they don’t know it’s dangerous. Or maybe they figure it is not as dangerous as walking down a Chicago street without a gun and a badge like a civilian!

Quote:
You are labeling “suicide bombers” as a terrorist activity. During the Vietnam War, children would go into American camps to get the sympathy of soldiers. When the soldiers weren’t looking, these same children threw hand grenades at them. Now since those were civilian children, they could be considered terrorists. But they also could be considered enemy soldiers out of uniform. Or maybe just “bad boys”!
…

They were terrorists. If they were enlisted in the Army of North Vietnam, and were out of uniform, they are underdifferent rules than ones in uniform. I suggest that you study the rules of things like that. A soldier caught behind enemy lines in uniform becomes a prisoner. One out of uniform can be executed without regard to the Geneva convention.​

I’m talking little children between 7-10 years old and they weren’t wearing uniforms of any description.

 

[MumboJumbo]

Quote:
The suicide part of suicide bomber is one who is almost certain to be killed when the explosive goes off to kill his target/s. I don’t see how this makes him a coward. The examples you gave above (heroes) were certain to create the impression of people saving lives. But military actions of civilians, (resistance fighters or “terrorists”) can save civilizations by preventing the enemy from winning a total “hearts and minds” victory. The war is not lost as long as someone is willing to fight back.
…

They are cowards because they attack those who cannot or will not defend themselves. I cannot understand why you do not grasp that. If a man attacks me, he is attacking a 6 foot tall, 200 pound man with martial arts training who lives in a right to carry state. I will respond differently than a 5 foot tall 80 pound woman who is 70 years old. Why is that hard to grasp? Do you like the idea that blowing up women and children is a good one?​

If a 25 year old gang member, a 70 year old grandma, or a 12 year old punk kills you, does it matter how old and what sex the person pulling the trigger was? You’re just as dead!

Quote:
Maybe that’s the definition of hero you were looking for. The one who is willing to continue the fight to the end, and will not compromise his beliefs.
…

That can be a hero, too. However, if you are too ignorant of the universe to grasp how killing innocent women and children makes you the lowest form of dung possible, I suggest that you grow up some. Get out an see how these “heros” of yours hurt the innocent and do more harm than good for their cause.

---

I find it interesting that you place women and children in a higher value range than men. What about a 82 year old male WW2 veteran with a drawer full of medals against a 18year old Latina gang banger. Whose life is worth more?

 

[ralphinal]

Re: Could Suicide Bombers be the Saints of the 21st Century?

Try and tell that to someone who is stuck in one of those neighborhoods.

Look, I feel sorry for anyone in a crime-infested area. I really do. However, those who commit the crimes need to be stopped. Do you know how you stop crimes in an area?

It is nice that we have definitions for everything. "I’m sorry maam! Your husband wasn’t killed by a terrorist, he was killed by a war criminal and therefore you are not entitled to any monetary help. So sorry!

How old are you? Here is the deal, and I hope that this sinks in, everyone and EVERYTHING on this planet is under some sort of catagory or definition. No matter what you want to be, society calls you something. How you act and what you do has an effect on the words used to describe you.

In Chicago, the lines of people waiting to join the police department are blocks long. Maybe they don’t know it’s dangerous. Or maybe they figure it is not as dangerous as walking down a Chicago street without a gun and a badge like a civilian!

Maybe they see more value in someone else than you do?

I’m talking little children between 7-10 years old and they weren’t wearing uniforms of any description.

Then they were terrorists.

If a 25 year old gang member, a 70 year old grandma, or a 12 year old punk kills you, does it matter how old and what sex the person pulling the trigger was? You’re just as dead!

Correct

I find it interesting that you place women and children in a higher value range than men. What about a 82 year old male WW2 veteran with a drawer full of medals against a 18year old Latina gang banger. Whose life is worth more?

All life is equal… The death of any human is a loss, unless they are born into eternal life. WHat I do not understand is why a coward with a twisted world view has more value to you than a 6 year old has potential.

 

[rpp]

The OP appears to be promoting, or at least admiring, acts of violence and terror against innocent civilians. That is a very serious violation of both forum rules and basic humanity.

Personally, I would not engage such a person in a conversation for feed their need for attention. Note that this is the only thread he has posted on since he joined.