3 ms·

Suicide Bombing Makes Sick Sense in Halo 3

14 points by shayan 19y ago

cglee 19y ago
Kamikaze pilots are not the same as terrorists. Terrorists, as the name suggests, mean to inflict psychological damage -- terror -- to the population, including civilians. They do this by committing the most atrocious thing possible. Kamikazes, as far as I know, are soldiers who have decided to give their lives in combat. Giving up your own life in combat is not the same as tossing a bomb into a crowded supermarket when not under any immediate danger.
- DanielBMarkham 19y ago
  My definition: the use of stealth to deliberately attack civilians in order to affect political change. That way the firebombing of Dresden and use of the a-bomb doesn't qualify, as there was nothing stealthy about it. Likewise inadvertent civilian casualties, like the four thousand French civilians who were killed in D-day, are not counted. No doubt having a bomb kill your whole family during a large sea invasion is pretty terrifying, but it's a different concept for _society_ than somebody sneaking up to you in a market with a suicide vest on. But choose your own. Definitions are very important when talking about terrorism. Some people think everything is terrorism. For those folks, it's really hard to discuss. I really hope I didn't start a political discussion. Nothing to see here, please move along.
  - mynameishere 19y ago
    use of the a-bomb doesn't qualify, as there was nothing stealthy "Stealth" as used here is a pathetic weasel word. Such rhetoric comes up all the time in order to demonize the tactics used by the poorly-equipped, in contrast to the expensively-equipped. But, FYI, the Japanese had an air-raid system which normally functioned whenever bombers were detected. In the case of the atomic attacks, the alarms weren't set off because one bomber does not signify a bomb-run. Hence, they were as "stealthy" as anything could be. EDIT: To head off the argument "But we warned them," it is pretty clear that no one is going to evacuate entire cities on mere warnings. Completely impractical.
    - DanielBMarkham 19y ago
      So you're saying that even though we DID warn them, it doesn't count because there's no way the warning could have been heeded? Sounds a little self-serving. We killed a lot more Japanese civilians in conventional bombing than we ever did with the A-bomb, not that most people know that. I guess it was fine to continue killing them with one kind of bomb, but not with another? Glad to use a weasel word. It was called for. It's a tricky definition, but I'm happy with it. I'm sure that others will disagree, hence my concern at even posting it. But I'm a fan of the way language works, both in politics and user interaction, so I thought it was germane. For those wishing to engage in a good political debate (probably not me, as people have a tendency to down-mod me for days after I express political opinions as a way of "paying me back"), the use of force in wartime is a good one. There was an interesting editorial along those lines in the Wall Street Journal yesterday commemorating the death of one of the pilots that flew the A-bomb missions. You can check it out here: http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bstephens/?id=110010827 http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bstephens/?id=11001...
      - mynameishere 19y ago
        Conventional bombers are also terroristic, according to any dictionary definition of the word. Even lexicographers are subject to political whim, I'm sure, so you can make up whatever definition you want. We should understand at minimum that it is not more honorable somehow to attack from a greater distance, using more elaborate machinery, using different words to describe the same results, etc. None of those is morally positive.
        DanielBMarkham 19y ago
        If your definition is "that which causes terror" then it is over-broad, including everything from chemical warfare to late night Alfred Hitchcock movies. Yes I can make up whatever definition I want, not in some effort to "get my way" in the argument, but simply as a way to disambiguate the conversation. Words with overly broad meanings lead to sloppy analysis (hence the relationship to hacking) War is not honorable at all in my opinion, and it's not a game that should be played fairly like some inter-collegiate hockey game. It's a messy and horrible business and no amount of weaseling or moralizing can make it any better. The goal, as best I can tell, is to make the other side want to stop fighting before they do the same to you. Having said all of that, it only takes one party willing to use force to make all parties use counter-force, so war is going to be with us for a long while. So it's simply not enough to throw our hands up in disgust and cast a pox on the whole affair -- we need to be intimate with it. The same way we are intimate with cancer, or terror, or death, or any number of other cruel realities in life.
- cstejerean 19y ago
  Agreed, but the tactics of terrorist suicide bombers and kamikaze pilots are similar. Willfully sacrifice your life in order to achieve a goal. That goal might be to blow up a market in order to terrorize a town or to blow up an enemy ship.
- earthboundkid 19y ago
  Under that definition, wouldn't Hiroshima/Nagasaki count as terrorism? We did the worst thing we could to civilians to force their government to cave in to us.
ced 19y ago
Bah, dying in games is not any worse than losing a point in a sport, or chess. Kasparov sent a "suicide pawn" to be massacred by the "enemy queen". It has really nothing to do with the individual act of suicide bombing. The interesting thing about his strategy is that it might increase his chance of survival. He is playing a variant of Tit for Tat. If other skilled players knew that he was doing this, they would actively avoid him. Are there stats in Halo for "Kills from beyond the grave"? If so, he would benefit from making as many people as possible aware of the strategy. In theory, at least.
Shorel 19y ago
Is that one of those games that auto-aims for you? Good luck against a seasoned Quake player (if they dare to enable that option). XD

14 points by shayan 19y ago

cglee 19y ago

Kamikaze pilots are not the same as terrorists. Terrorists, as the name suggests, mean to inflict psychological damage -- terror -- to the population, including civilians. They do this by committing the most atrocious thing possible. Kamikazes, as far as I know, are soldiers who have decided to give their lives in combat. Giving up your own life in combat is not the same as tossing a bomb into a crowded supermarket when not under any immediate danger.

DanielBMarkham 19y ago
My definition: the use of stealth to deliberately attack civilians in order to affect political change. That way the firebombing of Dresden and use of the a-bomb doesn't qualify, as there was nothing stealthy about it. Likewise inadvertent civilian casualties, like the four thousand French civilians who were killed in D-day, are not counted. No doubt having a bomb kill your whole family during a large sea invasion is pretty terrifying, but it's a different concept for _society_ than somebody sneaking up to you in a market with a suicide vest on. But choose your own. Definitions are very important when talking about terrorism. Some people think everything is terrorism. For those folks, it's really hard to discuss. I really hope I didn't start a political discussion. Nothing to see here, please move along.
- mynameishere 19y ago
  use of the a-bomb doesn't qualify, as there was nothing stealthy "Stealth" as used here is a pathetic weasel word. Such rhetoric comes up all the time in order to demonize the tactics used by the poorly-equipped, in contrast to the expensively-equipped. But, FYI, the Japanese had an air-raid system which normally functioned whenever bombers were detected. In the case of the atomic attacks, the alarms weren't set off because one bomber does not signify a bomb-run. Hence, they were as "stealthy" as anything could be. EDIT: To head off the argument "But we warned them," it is pretty clear that no one is going to evacuate entire cities on mere warnings. Completely impractical.
  - DanielBMarkham 19y ago
    So you're saying that even though we DID warn them, it doesn't count because there's no way the warning could have been heeded? Sounds a little self-serving. We killed a lot more Japanese civilians in conventional bombing than we ever did with the A-bomb, not that most people know that. I guess it was fine to continue killing them with one kind of bomb, but not with another? Glad to use a weasel word. It was called for. It's a tricky definition, but I'm happy with it. I'm sure that others will disagree, hence my concern at even posting it. But I'm a fan of the way language works, both in politics and user interaction, so I thought it was germane. For those wishing to engage in a good political debate (probably not me, as people have a tendency to down-mod me for days after I express political opinions as a way of "paying me back"), the use of force in wartime is a good one. There was an interesting editorial along those lines in the Wall Street Journal yesterday commemorating the death of one of the pilots that flew the A-bomb missions. You can check it out here: http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bstephens/?id=110010827 http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bstephens/?id=11001...
    - mynameishere 19y ago
      Conventional bombers are also terroristic, according to any dictionary definition of the word. Even lexicographers are subject to political whim, I'm sure, so you can make up whatever definition you want. We should understand at minimum that it is not more honorable somehow to attack from a greater distance, using more elaborate machinery, using different words to describe the same results, etc. None of those is morally positive.
      - DanielBMarkham 19y ago
        If your definition is "that which causes terror" then it is over-broad, including everything from chemical warfare to late night Alfred Hitchcock movies. Yes I can make up whatever definition I want, not in some effort to "get my way" in the argument, but simply as a way to disambiguate the conversation. Words with overly broad meanings lead to sloppy analysis (hence the relationship to hacking) War is not honorable at all in my opinion, and it's not a game that should be played fairly like some inter-collegiate hockey game. It's a messy and horrible business and no amount of weaseling or moralizing can make it any better. The goal, as best I can tell, is to make the other side want to stop fighting before they do the same to you. Having said all of that, it only takes one party willing to use force to make all parties use counter-force, so war is going to be with us for a long while. So it's simply not enough to throw our hands up in disgust and cast a pox on the whole affair -- we need to be intimate with it. The same way we are intimate with cancer, or terror, or death, or any number of other cruel realities in life.
cstejerean 19y ago
Agreed, but the tactics of terrorist suicide bombers and kamikaze pilots are similar. Willfully sacrifice your life in order to achieve a goal. That goal might be to blow up a market in order to terrorize a town or to blow up an enemy ship.
earthboundkid 19y ago
Under that definition, wouldn't Hiroshima/Nagasaki count as terrorism? We did the worst thing we could to civilians to force their government to cave in to us.

ced 19y ago

Bah, dying in games is not any worse than losing a point in a sport, or chess. Kasparov sent a "suicide pawn" to be massacred by the "enemy queen". It has really nothing to do with the individual act of suicide bombing. The interesting thing about his strategy is that it might increase his chance of survival. He is playing a variant of Tit for Tat. If other skilled players knew that he was doing this, they would actively avoid him. Are there stats in Halo for "Kills from beyond the grave"? If so, he would benefit from making as many people as possible aware of the strategy. In theory, at least.

Shorel 19y ago

Is that one of those games that auto-aims for you? Good luck against a seasoned Quake player (if they dare to enable that option). XD