So...

[Adora]

Arafat's dead.

Discuss.

[Dingfod]

Power vacuum? Power struggle? Power grab? Continuation of the same or a different path for the Palestinians?

[beyelzu]

I for one am glad that the terrorist fuck is dead.

[viscousmemories]

He was definitely a fascinating and courageous revolutionary, as this bio (http://nobelprize.org/peace/laureates/1994/arafat-bio.html) illustrates.

I know a fair amount about the relationship between the Israelis and the Palestinians, but not enough to demonize Arafat or his methods. He fought what he viewed as tyranny with the resources and methods he had access to.

Blowing up buses sucks, of course. But so does military occupation and subjugation. I'm not prepared to judge either side of that conflict, personally.

[beyelzu]

He was definitely a fascinating and courageous revolutionary, as this bio (http://nobelprize.org/peace/laureates/1994/arafat-bio.html) illustrates.

I know a fair amount about the relationship between the Israelis and the Palestinians, but not enough to demonize Arafat or his methods. He fought what he viewed as tyranny with the resources and methods he had access to.

Blowing up buses sucks, of course. But so does military occupation and subjugation. I'm not prepared to judge either side of that conflict, personally.
intentionally targeting innocents is fucked up. I cant say that I am sorry that someone who did so is now dead.

[livius drusus]

Innocents have been intentionally targeted in wars since wars began. Do you hold all people complicit in such acts in the same kind of contempt notwithstanding the cause, or can their rationale or the wider context offset it?

[LadyXoc]

Not directed to me, but...

Innocents have been intentionally targeted in wars since wars began. Do you hold all people complicit in such acts in the same kind of contempt notwithstanding the cause

generally speaking, yes.

or can their rationale or the wider context offset it?

Not offset it, but certainly explain it. Not to start a shitstorm, but after reading this article in Mother Jones, I've begun to suspect there is sufficient nastiness on both sides of the Israeli/Palestinian situation to keep everyone at each other's throats for quite a while.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/dispatch/2004/11/11_471.html

[beyelzu]

Innocents have been intentionally targeted in wars since wars began. Do you hold all people complicit in such acts in the same kind of contempt notwithstanding the cause, or can their rationale or the wider context offset it?
I disagree that warfare is about intentionally targeting innocents. I dont think it has to be, I dont think that it is the norm in most modern societies, so I think terrorism which includes imho intentionally targeting is quite different from warfare.

I wonder if nonviolent protest could have worked in the west bank.

I hesitate to use the word never, but I can not think of a time when I would feel that inentionally targeting innocents is acceptable.

I understand that innocents die in war, but targeting them is another matter entirely.

[Petra]

Sorry, beyelzu. I'm an Arafat and Palestinian sympathiser.

Without Arafat, the world would not have heard much about the Palestinian's plight. Palestine is one example of talking getting you nowhere: No one listened to the Palestinians till Arafat and the PLO made us fucking listen.

As for their being a potential "power vacuum", well, Arafat was more of a figurehead in his later years. The Israelis said that with Arafat gone they may be able to negotiate peace with the Palestinians, but I doubt they will - they just said that to pay lipservice to peace and make a subtle slur against Arafat. Arafat was willing to find an accord with Rabin, who was worthy. I don't think the Palestinians can make peace with Sharon - whom I see as a terrorist himself; much like I see BushCo as "terrorists".

I cried when Rabin was assassinated, and I feel a little sadness at Arafat's death.

And as livius has said, innocents have been intentionally targeted in wars since wars began. Seems it's okay if they wear a military uniform, we don't think too much about that. But when they are denied the right a proper uniformed "legitimate" military, talk has proved cheap, international money and resources are pouring in to aid the people who wish to wipe your people's asses from the face of the earth, what else are they to do?

I don't think Arafat has been instrumental in the killing of anywhere near as many innocents in his whole time as leader of the PLO as BushCo has been instrumental in killing in just the last couple of years.

[Petra]

beyelzu - how is someone, without the use of the kind of vehicle and firepower needed to approach and directly target a military installation, supposed to fight for their life?

Unfortunately, given the money and support pouring in to Israel, they don't actually stand a chance. And there is nothing more dangerous than a man with nothing left to lose.

[livius drusus]

Not directed to me, but...

That's cool. I'm more than glad to hear as many perspectives on the issue as are out there. I'm of several minds on the matter myself.

Innocents have been intentionally targeted in wars since wars began. Do you hold all people complicit in such acts in the same kind of contempt notwithstanding the cause

generally speaking, yes.

Let me rephrase the question which I fear was too broad to be of much use: Are the acts themselves deserving of consistent contempt, the people perpetrating them on the ground, the people ordering them, the people who benefit from them through no direct involvement?

Not offset it, but certainly explain it. Not to start a shitstorm, but after reading this article in Mother Jones, I've begun to suspect there is sufficient nastiness on both sides of the Israeli/Palestinian situation to keep everyone at each other's throats for quite a while.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/dispatch/2004/11/11_471.html

Off the top of my head I suspect you're right. I'll read the article shortly.

[LadyXoc]

Let me rephrase the question which I fear was too broad to be of much use: Are the acts themselves deserving of consistent contempt, the people perpetrating them on the ground, the people ordering them, the people who benefit from them through no direct involvement?



Generally speaking, my personal feeling is, "yes." But I don't feel only Arafat and his people are guilty of this. I cannot stress that enough. I think Israel has its own "neocon" problem. And I do think leaving a group of people disenfranchised and under constant abuse and harrassment makes them much more likely to strike back by targeting innocents. I absolutely DO NOT condone it. But common sense should indicate it is likely to happen, given sufficient provocation. Blustering right-wing types never seem to see that, or they feel it's cowardly of them to care. When innocent people get blown up in a fucking Sbarro's, they can be all macho and shit and hop in a tank and bulldoze a few houses for revenge. But the people are still dead. And it doesn't have to happen. And the people who lost their homes or loved ones all want to kill each other. For ever and ever. Feh. It's a never-ending cycle.

[livius drusus]

Innocents have been intentionally targeted in wars since wars began. Do you hold all people complicit in such acts in the same kind of contempt notwithstanding the cause, or can their rationale or the wider context offset it?
I disagree that warfare is about intentionally targeting innocents. I dont think it has to be, I dont think that it is the norm in most modern societies, so I think terrorism which includes imho intentionally targeting is quite different from warfare.

I didn't say warfare was about intentionally targeting innocents, but I've certainly never heard of a war that didn't include such targeting in its tactical portfolio. Seriously, bey, as far as I know, killing women and children, destroying crops and homes, kidnapping, taking hostages, torture of witnesses, starvation via siege or blockade, all these tactics are part and parcel of armed conflict. Can you think of a war that did not include them?

I wonder if nonviolent protest could have worked in the west bank.

I wonder too. galiel made a compelling argument (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&postid=446492#post446492) for it once, and he was using Krav Maga in the IDF by the time he was 18.

I hesitate to use the word never, but I can not think of a time when I would feel that inentionally targeting innocents is acceptable.

I understand that innocents die in war, but targeting them is another matter entirely.

I think I agree, really. It's just that as I said above, I don't know of a war that doesn't use targeting civilians as a tactic, so it seems like condemning it and its advocates/perpetrators universally without caveats would be a hard thing to do consistently.

Edit: Is the general question of innocent targets in wartime better suited to another thread? I think it might be.

[Petra]

There definitely is nastiness on both sides.

It's to be expected when your house has been flattened along with the olive grove that provides you with an income, and some of your friends and family have been murdered by Israeli soldiers and settlers.. and the leader of the people who hate you is a rightwing war criminal backed by superpowers, and human rights abuses are rife...


Sure, the people of Palestine could have staged a sit in protest and thrown flowers at Israeli tanks and tried to talk - but I'm pretty sure that they would've ended up like the protesting students at Tiennamen Square.

[Petra]

Thanks for the galiel link, liv - I'll read that later - always did like galiel and his viewpoint. Shame he isn't here to join in on this - I respect his perspective.

Edit: Oh! I remember that thread! Thanks. :)

[godfry n. glad]

Hmmm... And who counts as an "innocent"?

It's my understanding that the United States was a early proponent of attacking civilian populations during war. The whole of "carpet bombing" and "firestorm bombing" and nuclear attack (the U.S. being the only entity that has ever used it in an attack) are all known methods of war which knowingly attack vast numbers of civilians, indiscriminately, and has been repeatedly used by the US and it's various allies.

The U.S. continued this tradition in its dealings with client states and in the conflict in Vietnam (the "destroy the village to save it" mindset and the atrocities of which My Lai is only the tip).

I suspect that a fairly good case could be made for the US military policy being the largest single source of "collateral deaths" of innocents in conflicts over the past 60 years.

Given that, I'd say that the "holier than thou" attitude regarding the deaths of innocents is misplaced.

Also, I consider both Israel and Palestine to be nations born from the actions of terrorists (as, I suppose, the US could be). Irgun was no social club. Nor was the PLO.

godfry

[Adora]

Just for the record, my opinions are generally the same as lunachick's- it's a sad situation when it takes suicide bombings to get the world to recognise the plight of an occupied people. I view the issues of Israel as a) an illegal occupation and b) veritable Apartheid more than comparable to that in Africa's past c) and finally, an issue that has grown beyond simple Palestinian Freedom because of the involvement of foreign fighters and funding from places like Saudi Arabia. They're as responsible for this as US Aid & wepons to Israel is.

Arafat's successor seems to be an interesting fellow, though. Mahmoud Abbas was once a school teacher, and claims he is opposed to terrorism (which may not be necessarily true). However, that could mean that the factions will splinter further than when they were under Arafat, since he managed to keep them all relatively united. Which I have to respect him for, in a strange kind of way. It couldn't have been an easy job.

[beyelzu]

beyelzu - how is someone, without the use of the kind of vehicle and firepower needed to approach and directly target a military installation, supposed to fight for their life?
it's easy you drive into a military base and blow up the vehicle your in. you take to the hills and shoot anyone you see wearing a uniform. there are lots of ways to strike and use violence without blowing up children and civilians. you could target military installations and federal buildings at night when there are less people around. in short, you can avoid intentionally targetting civillians.

Unfortunately, given the money and support pouring in to Israel, they don't actually stand a chance. And there is nothing more dangerous than a man with nothing left to lose.
again, I am not opposed to the use of violence per se, I understand that sometimes it is needed, but similar to my post to godfry in another thread, there are lines that should not be crossed even in war. Once you allow a no holds barred approach, how can you oppose shrub's concentration camp. they too believe the ends justify the means and that it is ok to fuck up innocents for the greater good.

[beyelzu]

Hmmm... And who counts as an "innocent"?
I dont necessarily have a perfect definition, but kids at a shopping mall definitely qualify as innocents.

It's my understanding that the United States was a early proponent of attacking civilian populations during war. The whole of "carpet bombing" and "firestorm bombing" and nuclear attack (the U.S. being the only entity that has ever used it in an attack) are all known methods of war which knowingly attack vast numbers of civilians, indiscriminately, and has been repeatedly used by the US and it's various allies.
the nuking of japan saved japanese and american lives. it was fucked up but ultimately necessary. also we dont carpet bomb anymore, now do we.

The U.S. continued this tradition in its dealings with client states and in the conflict in Vietnam (the "destroy the village to save it" mindset and the atrocities of which My Lai is only the tip).

I suspect that a fairly good case could be made for the US military policy being the largest single source of "collateral deaths" of innocents in conflicts over the past 60 years.
sure if you use a liberal definition.

Given that, I'd say that the "holier than thou" attitude regarding the deaths of innocents is misplaced.
bullshit, I think that intentionally killing innocents is wrong. I dont give a shit who does it. I think it is always wrong. I think it was wrong when we did it in nam. I think it is wrong when the plo does it. my beliefs are consistent.

Also, I consider both Israel and Palestine to be nations born from the actions of terrorists (as, I suppose, the US could be). Irgun was no social club. Nor was the PLO.

godfry

[Petra]

it's easy I'm not convinced of that.you drive into a military base and blow up the vehicle your in. you take to the hills and shoot anyone you see wearing a uniform. there are lots of ways to strike and use violence without blowing up children and civilians. you could target military installations and federal buildings at night when there are less people around. in short, you can avoid intentionally targetting civillians.This'll sound facetious, and I don't mean it to be - but, have you ever been to Israel/Palestine?
Once you allow a no holds barred approach, how can you oppose shrub's concentration camp. they too believe the ends justify the means and that it is ok to fuck up innocents for the greater good.
Shrub is privilege to viable alternatives.

I'm not convinced the Palestinians have the privilege of viable alternatives right now - beyond lying down and becoming either slaves or extinct, that is..

[viscousmemories]

the nuking of japan saved japanese and american lives. it was fucked up but ultimately necessary. also we dont carpet bomb anymore, now do we.
I imagine Arafat was of the opinion that bombing busses was fucked up but ultimately necessary to ensure a future for the Palestinian people.

[Zoot]

I think a distinction must be drawn between an action being understandable and an action being acceptable. It's understandable that after 30 years of brutal occupation, Palestinian freedom fighters finally started doing what Israel had done all along: target civilians. That it's understandable doesn't make it okay.

I also agree with those who question just how personally responsible Arafat is for much of the violence by Palestinian freedom fighters. Civilians only started getting targeted by Palestinian militants relatively recently. I don't know whether or not Arafat has been in a position to be directing these actions in the last seven years.

[beyelzu]

the nuking of japan saved japanese and american lives. it was fucked up but ultimately necessary. also we dont carpet bomb anymore, now do we.
I imagine Arafat was of the opinion that bombing busses was fucked up but ultimately necessary to ensure a future for the Palestinian people.

the big difference is that arafat couldnt have argued that blowing up buses is going to result in saving israeli lives.

[viscousmemories]

the nuking of japan saved japanese and american lives. it was fucked up but ultimately necessary. also we dont carpet bomb anymore, now do we.
I imagine Arafat was of the opinion that bombing busses was fucked up but ultimately necessary to ensure a future for the Palestinian people.

the big difference is that arafat couldnt have argued that blowing up buses is going to result in saving israeli lives.
Why not? How did dropping the bomb on Japan save Japanese lives?

[beyelzu]

it's easy I'm not convinced of that
first you choose to not shoot civilians. then you shoot federal workers and soldiers instead of children in shopping malls. I really dont see the difficulty here. hell why dont the suicide bombers try to blow and only kill soldiers. the thing is, the bombers target civillians. I think this is unecessary and barbaric.

you drive into a military base and blow up the vehicle your in. you take to the hills and shoot anyone you see wearing a uniform. there are lots of ways to strike and use violence without blowing up children and civilians. you could target military installations and federal buildings at night when there are less people around. in short, you can avoid intentionally targetting civillians.This'll sound facetious, and I don't mean it to be - but, have you ever been to Israel/Palestine?

no but the point remains. obviously, there isnt alot of land in the area, but they could still come out at night and try to snipe or blow up military targets.

Once you allow a no holds barred approach, how can you oppose shrub's concentration camp. they too believe the ends justify the means and that it is ok to fuck up innocents for the greater good.
Shrub is privilege to viable alternatives.

I'm not convinced the Palestinians have the privilege of viable alternatives right now - beyond lying down and becoming either slaves or extinct, that is..they had a choice. there is always a choice. I would not choose to target innocent people, they have.

[viscousmemories]

also we dont carpet bomb anymore, now do we.
You made me curious so I looked it up. Actually I think we do, and started a thread about it here (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=21907#post21907).

[Darren]

you drive into a military base and blow up the vehicle your in. you take to the hills and shoot anyone you see wearing a uniform. there are lots of ways to strike and use violence without blowing up children and civilians. you could target military installations and federal buildings at night when there are less people around. in short, you can avoid intentionally targetting civillians.This'll sound facetious, and I don't mean it to be - but, have you ever been to Israel/Palestine?

no but the point remains. obviously, there isnt alot of land in the area, but they could still come out at night and try to snipe or blow up military targets.

Once you allow a no holds barred approach, how can you oppose shrub's concentration camp. they too believe the ends justify the means and that it is ok to fuck up innocents for the greater good.
Shrub is privilege to viable alternatives.

I'm not convinced the Palestinians have the privilege of viable alternatives right now - beyond lying down and becoming either slaves or extinct, that is..they had a choice. there is always a choice. I would not choose to target innocent people, they have.[/QUOTE]

The situation in Palestine is this:
Large numbers of palestinians were driven out of areas they had previously inhabited into massive, permanent refugee camps. Moreover, the Israelis are continuing a process of massive colonization of both Cisjordania and Gaza - despite Sharon's recent moves toward the abandonment of the latter. This colonization is supported, underwritten and guaranteed by the Israeli government with the U.S. backed military forces at it's disposal. Thus the palestinians do face a real danger of further displacement and even destruction if they do not resist. The more extreme zionist points of view see the promised land stretching from the Nile up to Iraq. They also do not see the presence of Palestinians in their promised land as desirable.
Israel occupies the Golan heights, the source of the Jordan, and thus controls much of the water supply to the region. Water which would otherwise flow to Palestinian areas is diverted to Israeli controlled areas (there exist massive tunnels stretching over many miles for this purpose). This hugely unequal division of water resources (generally ignored internationally) allows Israel to produce high-water-requirement fruits like citrus fruits and cucumbers for international export while Palestinian farmers struggle for lack of water.
The intifada frequently does target the Israeli military forces assaulting them (in the form of tanks, F 16s, Apache gunships and bulldozers). This targetting is then used to justify the Israeli assaults as 'retaliation' in the U.S. and British media. The Israeli military does target civilians deliberately, bombing refugee camps and bulldozing entire villages to the ground to make way for colonists. Also, Palestinian childeren who throw stones at Israeli tanks and soldiers are fired upon with live ammunition regularly.
The palestinians have, over the years, consistently sought peace and protection from the international community in the form of the U.N. The U.S. has consistently used its right of veto to scupper these moves. Such resolutions as have been taken in favour of Palestine are ignored by Israel.
Unlike Iraq, Israel does have a nuclear strke capacity, illegal under international law.
Where does all this leave the Palestinians?
I'm sure that if they had F16s, Apaches and tanks they would use these in preference to suicide-bombers, the poor man's "smart bomb". Arafat was no angel, like any head of state he had blood on his hands, innocent blood too, but not, I think, as much innocent blood as Ariel Sharon, who presided over large scale massacring of Palestinian refugees as an army officer.
I'm not justifying the killing of civilians, just pointing out some aspects of the situation that leads some Palestinians to do so. Also, I'd like to point out that a palestinian suicide bomber kills himself as well as his targets, while Israeli, British or U.S bomber crews rarely do so.

As to your earlier statements about using the "bomb" on Japan to save lives, I'd like to point out two things: Firstly, any lives saved by the targetting of two (civilian) centres of population with the subsequent deaths of tens of thousands of innocents were American and perhaps Japanese military personnel (NOT innocent civilians - that's who the targets deliberately were). Secondly, the U.S. military heirarchy were largely against the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was really Truman and Oppenheimer (in charge of the Manhattan project) who wanted both to see how the "bomb" worked and to get the war over before the "reds" could advance any further into South East Asia.

I'd also like to point out that Falloujah is a civilian population centre which is presently being destroyed by American military forces.

Damning Arafat for being a terrorist is just the result of an out of focus view of current affairs - I don't blame you, I blame the media.

[beyelzu]

The situation in Palestine is this:
Large numbers of palestinians were driven out of areas they had previously inhabited into massive, permanent refugee camps. Moreover, the Israelis are continuing a process of massive colonization of both Cisjordania and Gaza - despite Sharon's recent moves toward the abandonment of the latter. This colonization is supported, underwritten and guaranteed by the Israeli government with the U.S. backed military forces at it's disposal. Thus the palestinians do face a real danger of further displacement and even destruction if they do not resist. The more extreme zionist points of view see the promised land stretching from the Nile up to Iraq. They also do not see the presence of Palestinians in their promised land as desirable.
Israel occupies the Golan heights, the source of the Jordan, and thus controls much of the water supply to the region. Water which would otherwise flow to Palestinian areas is diverted to Israeli controlled areas (there exist massive tunnels stretching over many miles for this purpose). This hugely unequal division of water resources (generally ignored internationally) allows Israel to produce high-water-requirement fruits like citrus fruits and cucumbers for international export while Palestinian farmers struggle for lack of water.
The intifada frequently does target the Israeli military forces assaulting them (in the form of tanks, F 16s, Apache gunships and bulldozers). This targetting is then used to justify the Israeli assaults as 'retaliation' in the U.S. and British media. The Israeli military does target civilians deliberately, bombing refugee camps and bulldozing entire villages to the ground to make way for colonists. Also, Palestinian childeren who throw stones at Israeli tanks and soldiers are fired upon with live ammunition regularly.
The palestinians have, over the years, consistently sought peace and protection from the international community in the form of the U.N. The U.S. has consistently used its right of veto to scupper these moves. Such resolutions as have been taken in favour of Palestine are ignored by Israel.
Unlike Iraq, Israel does have a nuclear strke capacity, illegal under international law.
Where does all this leave the Palestinians?
I'm sure that if they had F16s, Apaches and tanks they would use these in preference to suicide-bombers, the poor man's "smart bomb". Arafat was no angel, like any head of state he had blood on his hands, innocent blood too, but not, I think, as much innocent blood as Ariel Sharon, who presided over large scale massacring of Palestinian refugees as an army officer.
I'm not justifying the killing of civilians, just pointing out some aspects of the situation that leads some Palestinians to do so. Also, I'd like to point out that a palestinian suicide bomber kills himself as well as his targets, while Israeli, British or U.S bomber crews rarely do so.

As to your earlier statements about using the "bomb" on Japan to save lives, I'd like to point out two things: Firstly, any lives saved by the targetting of two (civilian) centres of population with the subsequent deaths of tens of thousands of innocents were American and perhaps Japanese military personnel (NOT innocent civilians - that's who the targets deliberately were). Secondly, the U.S. military heirarchy were largely against the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was really Truman and Oppenheimer (in charge of the Manhattan project) who wanted both to see how the "bomb" worked and to get the war over before the "reds" could advance any further into South East Asia.

I'd also like to point out that Falloujah is a civilian population centre which is presently being destroyed by American military forces.

Damning Arafat for being a terrorist is just the result of an out of focus view of current affairs - I don't blame you, I blame the media.
damn, I must have missed the part where I said that I supported israel and liked them and shit.

I dont like it when israel kills civillians either. I am not pro israel, I am not pro palestine. I think the whole situation is fucked up and they need to quit killing innocents.

the bomb is another thread. but instead of arguing I will just quote vork's thread over at ii.

[viscousmemories]

the bomb is another thread. but instead of arguing I will just quote vork's thread over at ii.
Does Vork explain why our targetting Japanese civilians was "fucked up but necessary" but the Palestinians who target civilians are terrorists with no excuse for their behavior? Because that seems to be the claim you're making here.

[beyelzu]

the bomb is another thread. but instead of arguing I will just quote vork's thread over at ii.
Does Vork explain why our targetting Japanese civilians was "fucked up but necessary" but the Palestinians who target civilians are terrorists with no excuse for their behavior? Because that seems to be the claim you're making here.
tell you what, if you can prove that the plo blowing up the foodcourt in shopping malls is going to equal a net saving of lives for both israelis and palestinians, then I will gladly withdraw my condemntation of arafat.


apples and oranges.

[viscousmemories]

tell you what, if you can prove that the plo blowing up the foodcourt in shopping malls is going to equal a net saving of lives for both israelis and palestinians, then I will gladly withdraw my condemntation of arafat.

apples and oranges.
So which is which? Japanese civilians = expendable apples and Israeli civilians = precious oranges, or is it the other way around?

[wade-w]

I can't see where you get that bey is saying that either Japanese or Israelis are expendable.

[beyelzu]

I can't see where you get that bey is saying that either Japanese or Israelis are expendable.
neither can I.

[beyelzu]

tell you what, if you can prove that the plo blowing up the foodcourt in shopping malls is going to equal a net saving of lives for both israelis and palestinians, then I will gladly withdraw my condemntation of arafat.

apples and oranges.
So which is which? Japanese civilians = expendable apples and Israeli civilians = precious oranges, or is it the other way around?

The two situations are different.
evaluating the morality of the actions, it is necessary to look at causes and effects. Why decisions were made.

While bombing hiroshima and nagasaki was fucking horrific, there was a net saving of japanese lives. The war ended months or even years ealier. Furthermore, ending the war saved pacific islandes and asian lives. The death toll of the japanese was fucking incredible.

Dropping the bomb didnt happen in a vaccuum.

The palestinians arent saving any israeli lives, they arent saving anyone else's lives, they are fighting for their survival as a nation and I suppose as a people, but they are taking innocent lives for this.

[viscousmemories]

My point was that Bey's initial objection was to the killing of innocents across the board, but he seems to make an exception for Japanese innocents because the ends were positive.

A more succint (and less smart-ass on my part) point which I'm stealing from squian, is: The people who dropped the bomb on Hiroshima had no way of knowing that the long range net effect of doing so would be positive, but they did it anyway because they believed it would be. Since the Palestinian/Israeli conflict is still on-going, I suspect they think the jury is still out on the net effect of suicide bombing.

ETA: We cross-posted, so I understand Bey's exception better now.