Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Encouraging other to commit suicide!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Encouraging other to commit suicide!

    The question originally posted by mufakkar:

    What is your opinion of those people who actually encourage others to commit suicide bombings?
    and the answer was given:

    Are you talking about those “field generals” who send their men to occupy the top of the hill? To save their homeland, from invaders, to save their existence. During that process of full filling the orders, the men die, knowingly. Before they march towards the hill top, they know that, and its been told to them that, if they don’t take that hilltop, they might lose this WAR, not this battle. Their honor, their dignity, their livelihood would be lost.
    So, they strap them selves with dynamites, and hug the tanks coming towards them, Kaboom….are you talking about these men.?

    Now imagine if you have already lost your, homeland, your honor, your dignity, and the only thing left is your existence, which is on the verge of annihilation.

    And we are still confused if its not War, and these are “Suicide” bombers?
    When the soldiers are ordered to go take the hill, they still have a chance to succeed & live! No matter how hard the task maybe or how slim the chances of them coming out alive - they still have a chance! Those who commit suicide booming die first & their death is the surety of their title "suicide" & the destruction of their enemy!

    Anyway, I have the following two questions:
    [*]If that analogy is taken to be as its presented then why is the case that there are so few soldiers who carry out the mission & so many generals who profess their orders?
    [*]As the question was regarding Sheikh Qaradawi Sahib, I would like to know how many of his sons or daughters have fulfill his orders?
    I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
    - Robert McCloskey

    #2
    Originally posted by ahmadjee:
    If that analogy is taken to be as its presented then why is the case that there are so few soldiers who carry out the mission & so many generals who profess their orders?
    There are more generals who support these orders, but only few who give these orders. As per the soldiers, do you thing an army will send all of its best men in one single bettle.
    In Janin, everybody above the age of 15 was arrested, as being supporter of Islamic Resistence Movement, not all of them will become bombers, few will, the rest will always resist.


    [*]As the question was regarding Sheikh Qaradawi Sahib, I would like to know how many of his sons or daughters have fulfill his orders/

    Your question is with out any base, do you thing Bush should; send her daughters to fight the so-called terrorist war? And If he can’t send them, then he should not brag about the war?
    Do you think Musharef, should call his son back to Pakistan, because he wants the young talent to come back to Pakistan?, other wise he should not talk about it?

    [This message has been edited by MiniMe (edited April 23, 2002).]
    بِن دانا پانی میں جی لواں
    بِن انَک میں جی نہ سکاں

    Comment


      #3
      MiniMe,

      I guess you are a supporting general too?! Heck, half the people on this forum are supporting generals! I wish a soldier can come forward and maybe post his response!

      Thank you for your input though!

      Anyone else? Or does MiniMe cover's everyone's opinion on this topic?
      I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
      - Robert McCloskey

      Comment


        #4
        It’s a good thing. If someone is dumb enough to follow such a stupid mission, he/she deserves to die. What is tragic is that some times they send minors to commit atrocities. Yesterday, they showed a 14 year old boy who was going on to a suicide mission and he changed his mind at the last minute. His interview was shown on Israeli TV. It was so very sad to see that.

        Comment


          #5
          Ok sorry for the delay, today was a busy day. I haven't read all the replies as yet but here is the answer to people asking about 'field generals':

          First of all it must be kept in mind that no one is born a general, for a major part of one's military carreer, one has to lead the soldiers on. It is not until one reaches he rank of Brigadier or higher that one gets the choice to stay back in the Field HQ and not on the front. Still, history tells us that the good generals are those who even though they carry the general's baton, lead from the front. This was true of Salahaddin Ayubi, Taimur Babar, Hosh Mohammad Sindhi (1857) Rommel, Guderian, Monty, and all others. Moreover, in principal at least, the professional armies around the world choose those officers to be generals that have a proven record of keeping the casualties of thier men to a minimum. To get to that level officers have to over the course of thier 20--30 years of service take countless courses, participate in field excercises etc. Officers are present in the army for the welfare of soldiers. Officers are always trained to keep the loss of military assets (Men and equipment)to a minimum and in the end the army that does that more effectively wins.

          Besides suicide in war was shown to be a useless tactic as was proven by the Kamikaze in the second World War.

          That is enough for now, you are all free to make your own conclusions. I'll be ineterested in looking at people's responses.

          Comment

          Working...
          X