Difference between a Soldier Suicide Bomber and a Terrorist Suicide Attacker

Difference between a Soldier Suicide Bomber and a Terrorist Suicide Attacker:

For this analysis, I think the term ’suicide attacker’ would be better than ’suicide bomber’ because the former is relatively more general term and all the impacts of later term are also included in the former one. Secondly we must differentiate between ’soldier suicide attacker’ and ‘terrorist suicide attacker’.

A ’soldier suicide attacker’ is one, who in the state of physical or even implied warfare, attacks on the military oriented establishments or even personals of enemy in such a way that he does not take care of his own possible death in his mission.

A ’soldier suicide attacker’ is a BRAVE person. He is having HIGH ETHICAL MORALE. He knows who are his right enemies. He has all the rights that he can rightfully attack on his enemies even in a way like a ’suicide attack’. By definition, a soldier is one who is committed to sacrifice his own life while during fighting with the enemies. If a soldier were not ready to sacrifice his life during fight with the enemy, that soldier would be COWARD in this case. If most of the soldiers of a technically developed country do not want to sacrifice their lives even during wartime, then they would be coward by nature. They would rely on sophisticated technology, which could conveniently kill others without any risk of self-sacrifice. In this way, they would actually be just ‘cunning’ and ‘clever’ but they would not be brave.

Now come to the ‘terrorist suicide attacker’ (TSAs). First of all these TSAs do not rightly identify who their real enemies are. Due to their stupid form of ignorance, they think that innocent civilians of the enemy nation are also their enemies. Secondly these TSAs are coward by nature. They do not possess enough courage to face the military personals of enemy so they choose innocent people as their target. Even at this point, they show their cowardice by keeping their identity secret. Even if they do not do it, they would not become brave then. So these coward TSAs unrightfully attack those innocent from behind, who actually cannot be considered as ‘enemies’.

These TSAs do not possess any good moral purpose. They actually possess a negative form of ill ethics. Their purpose is just to blackmail the enemy by threatening dangers to the lives of innocent civilian people of enemy. In this way the enemy actually acquires a good and better ethical position because here the role of enemy would be ‘good’ if that enemy strives for the protection of lives of its own civilian population.

These TSAs are worse than even the cruel army of the enemy. A cruel army, when persecutes, or even massacre the civilian population of enemy, it would do it while considering it’s owns self as somewhat superior to the oppressed nation. This cruel army would consider it’s own self as superior and would consider the whole enemy nation as inferior. This thing cannot be considered as ethically good. This is an evil basically.

But what if those TSAs happen to be proving themselves as much more ethically bad than that? If someone considers other people as mean and inferior and so even wants to exterminate those people, we would call that someone as a wicked. But what if a person considers his own self so much inferior and mean that he is ready to kill his own self just in a bet to possibly blackmail his enemy using a coward and negative way-out? A person who considers others to be inferior to him is actually less wicked than that person who considers himself as much inferior that he thinks as if the value of his own life was equivalent to a coward negative purpose.

Those who cannot or do not give proper respect to their own selves how can they expect that other nations shall give them any respect? The biggest social evil in which contemporary Muslim societies have been trapped is that they have lost their self-respect.

USA - The World Leader not just because of superior Militery Power:

In my assessment, USA stands as a world leader not just because of its superior military power. To be a world leader, a country must require having somewhat ‘ideological agenda’, which could organize other major countries of the world under the leadership of that country. And I must make it clear that it is not just philosophical assertion but in fact it is ground reality. About two centuries back when Britain and France were struggling for their colonial expansions, both these countries were doing it for the cause of some ideological agenda. Agenda for Britain was the ‘cause of white man’, and the agenda for France was ‘civilization of un-civilized human populations’, mainly in African countries. In this way, both these colonial powers were actually legitimizing their colonial holdings, in the eyes of other countries.

In the later periods of colonization, Britain adopted the slogans of ‘liberalism’, ‘democracy’ etc. as their political agenda with the view to legitimize its colonial holdings.

What is Legitimization?

Legitimization is the NEED of any government or head of government. In the contemporary world, this ‘legitimization’ mainly comes from democratic vote. When some political group gets this democratic vote, its position as true head of state becomes UNQUESTIONABLE in the eyes of not only country’s own population, but also in the eyes of governments of other countries of the world.

This ‘legitimization’ exists even in absolute dictatorship or monarchy, but in somewhat different form. A monarch king usually legitimizes his kingship by manipulating the religious beliefs of the population of his own country. In the ancient Greek world, Alexander, for instance, ‘legitimized’ his superior position by calling himself as ‘son of Zeus’ (i.e. an ancient god). Similarly, the Faros of ancient Egypt also legitimized their kingships in same manner.

Above are the examples out of ancient times. In the medieval times, Catholic Church happened to have effective political control over virtually whole of Europe. And Church also legitimized its political control by manipulating the religious beliefs of people. Japan’s monarchy is among the most ancient monarchies of world. To obey or to give best of respect to Japan’s Emperor is actually included in the beliefs of Shinto religion i.e. the dominant religion of Japan. So the authority of Emperor had ever been unquestionable in Japan. If authority is ‘unquestionable’ it means that authority is ‘legitimate’.

Dictators of contemporary world also try to legitimize their authority on religious grounds. In our country, Gen. Zia’s referendum was the most direct attempt to use religion with the view to get legitimate authority. Kings of Saudi Arabia call themselves ‘Khademein-e-Harmain Sharifain’. On the other hand they are ready to hand over all their affairs to Americans but still they need to have somewhat legitimacy in the eyes of Muslim population as well as in the eyes of other Muslim countries. Very ironical reality is that after the second world war, it happened to be only Arab countries which have lost their territories in wars and have been unable to re-gain those territories. Other exception may be Afghanistan.

Gen. Musharraf has legitimized himself in a different way. At very first instance, he came up with his ‘seven point agenda’ (note this is another form of ‘ideological agenda’). In this way, he successfully legitimized his authority in the eyes of upper and middle, educated class of country. Secondly, he got the chance of legitimizing himself internationally by accepting a crucial role in the so-called ‘war against terrorism’.

In the same way, USA also is in need to show its commitment to such ‘ideological agenda’, which should have some appeal to other major countries. USA’s one such ‘ideological agenda’ is the slogan of ‘global peace’. The slogan of this ‘global peace’ should be heeded in depth. Throughout the known history, humans have been divided in many political groups. Those groups always have been in the state of military wars with other groups. World, in its whole history, never have experienced any effective ‘international law’. Here I would like to refer to the ideas of Bertrand Russell who considered the absence of any international law as ‘international anarchy’. He put forwarded these views just after the end of Second World War. By that time, the whole world was quite fed up of continuing international wars. Although the world was divided in two major power blocks but still then both these blocks did not want to indulge themselves in any physical war. Both these power groups were in NEED to set up some international peace forum where they could settle their routine disputes without involving themselves in major physical wars. So the emergence of ‘effective’ United Nations was the need of the day. After it, the world also experienced the so-called ‘cold war’. It was generally anticipated that the ultimate consequence of this cold war would be more dangerous because any major war between such two powerful groups could end up in massive scale atomic war, which might result in complete destruction of contemporary human civilization or even humanity as a whole. So in those days, Bertrand Russell was one of the main proponents of the idea of uni-polar world regime. He elaborated this idea in details in his writings. His point of view was something like that to end up the prevalent fear of complete destruction of humanity as a whole; the world should organize itself under the leadership of a single super power country. That single super power country should possess complete monopoly in the possession of world’s main military assets. That super power country should act like a world policeman with the view to enforce a uniform universal law.

While comparing USA and USSR, Russell’s opinion went in the favor of USA as a ‘better’ international policeman. Russell took the side of USA on such grounds that USA was the supporter of such ideas as ‘freedom of thought’, ‘equality’ etc. as compared to USSR.

On this question that how actually the whole world could organize itself under a single leadership, Russell’s reply was that it could happen either as a result of another world war or it could happen as a result of agreement between the then two major power blocks. Russell could not survive to see how it actually has happened but it is a fact that it has happened in whatever way.

Now USA’s practical role is not different to what Russell assigned to his ideal single super power. Meaning of ‘global peace’ is that if all the alphabets are considered to be all the countries of world where ‘U’ would stand for USA, then country ‘A’ should not fight war with country ‘B’ or ‘M’. Similarly country ‘P’ also should not fight war with country ‘X’ or ‘Z’. In this ideal ‘global peace’, only country ‘U’ should fight wars with any other country. And country ‘U’ should fight wars with other countries with the view to ensure that other countries may not fight wars against each other.

In this way if country ‘U’ punishes country ‘M’ then it would NOT go against the basic idea of ‘global peace’. But the underlying purpose of ‘global peace’ is preservation of human civilization and humanity as a whole. So in case country ‘U’ punishes any other country in such a way which would become a serious threat to the preservation of human civilization and humanity as a whole, then at this point country ‘U’ would be crossing its those limits which were acceptable to all the other major countries. At this point, other countries MUST stop the hands of USA.

And yes just like USA, other major nations also believe in ‘human rights’ not in its true essence but just in the form of a clever slogan. If USA violates ‘human rights’ in Afghanistan or in Iraq, other major nations shall not take any serious notice of these cruelties. In these cases, the aggrieved nations should try to promote the idea of ‘human rights’ in its true essence. At some point, other nations would feel guilty over their present negligence.

Nature of “Double Standards” of Western and Muslim World:

Very often we ourselves do many such things which may be considered as ‘double standard’ from the point of view of others. A common American citizen actually thinks his country as being on the right if it successfully prolongs the present uni-polar world regime.

I try to explain it while supposing that I am an American. Being an ‘American’, I am feeling my nation is endowed with this divine responsibility that it has to maintain global peace at any cost. I also think it is due to the efforts of my country that international peace forums like United Nation etc. are ‘effectively’ functioning now. The role of my nation is that of an active, good and successful policeman. It is due to the efforts of my country that now nations throughout the world do not indulge themselves in wars. Now powerful countries do not occupy the territory of weak countries. Iraq for example did it once. But it was due to the efforts of my country that it had to pay heavy price for it and the sovereignty of Kuwait was restored as a result of the efforts of my country. There are many fanatic people living in this world. They forcefully interrupt the peaceful lives of other nations. For example there were Nazis and Communists. If my country did not become the supreme military power of the world, then either Nazis or Communists would have become. What if Nazis were the supreme military power of the present world? Obviously the relationship between Nazis and rest of world would have to be that of master and slave because Nazis are ‘racially superior’ to all the others. I would think, as a good American, that role of my country as a super military power is really very positive because it is after all not preaching any idea of racial superiority. My country is trying to promote democracies in the whole of contemporary world. Since democracy is good, it means that my country is thinking for the goodness of other countries of the world. Our country has saved the world from Communist Devils. They wanted to forcefully over-throw the peaceful governments of other countries. They wanted that other countries also follow their insane economic and political system. A Communist system does not allow liberty of thought to the populace. It is our country, which is the strong advocate of, and vigorously confederates the freedom of thought. Bertrand Russel was right in his analysis that people under the communist system could not be allowed to deviate their minds from Dialectical Materialism. In USA, on the other hand, people are free to choose any ideology or creed whichever satisfies their thirst of wisdom. Thus in our country, there are Christians, Jews, Muslims and others as well as people of our nation follow such wide range of ideologies as positivism, pragmatism, materialism, idealism, existentialism and so on. If our country were not the super military power of the world, the ruthless Arab Muslims would have eaten-up relatively very small group of Jews who just want to live in their ‘promised’ land.

With the fall of Communism, another kind of fanatics, the extremist Muslims now want to rule the world in their own very ignorant style. They do not want that women, out of their masses, be given proper education. They inhumanly treat those who belong to other religions. They consider it their religious duty to destroy even the archeological remains. They do not allow that other religions be preached in the countries wherever they may establish governments. When they assume power, they require from their masses such insane things as to keep beard of a certain length and to wear dresses having designs which come up to certain specifications. They want to promote a thing, which they call “jihad”, which is very wicked, harmful and dangerous for other ‘peaceful’ nations. Jihadies consider it all right that civil buildings of other countries be destroyed by bombs. They do not feel guilty if innocent women and children also die as a result. They want to employ WMDs in their terrorist activities. It is our country, which is so dedicatedly fighting against this global level terrorism.

Obviously when I would think all these things, as being a good American citizen, I would feel not much bad of what my country did in Hiroshima, in Vietnam, in Iraq and elsewhere. I would feel then that this was actually a price, which had to be paid for attaining and maintaining the global peace etc. etc. And it should be noted that it is true that Americans really do not feel much bad of their acts in Hiroshima or elsewhere. Because, in my assessment they think in above mentioned way.

Now I stop assuming that I am an American. I actually thought over the issue of ‘double standards’. We do not feel good of these so-called ‘double standards’ wherever we see them. Problem however is that we (obviously others also) can see ‘double standards’ in the acts and policies of only others. Normally one group of humans cannot see its own double standards. USA is no exception. I think that ‘double standards’ exist in two main forms. First can be considered as ‘value preference’ whereas other can be regarded as pure double standard.
The concept of ‘value preference’ can be seen as functional in our own daily lives. There are many things, which we consider as ‘valued’. The way of thinking, action, behavior and attitude, which we consider ‘important’, are our values. We prefer telling the truth to telling a lie. Truth for us therefore is more important. Normally we shall continue to prefer telling the truth to telling a lie but only up to the point where our truth remains in harmony with the rest of our value systems. For example I prefer telling a truth to telling a lie. This is my ‘value’. I possess some other values also. For example I want that my friends may not suffer any severe loss. My wish that my friend may not suffer severe losses can be considered to be another of my ‘value’. And sometimes I may face such situations where I would be needed to prefer one of my values to the other. I value truth and at the same time I also value my friends. Sometime there may arise conflict between these two of my values. Sometimes I may prefer the value relating to my friends to the value relating to the truth. This seems to be a ‘double standard’ but I like to call it as ‘value preference’. When I have to prefer one of my values to the other, I justify myself on the basis of comparing the difference between what I get and what I lose, in ethical terms, in this way. If my minor act of telling a less wicked lie saves my friend from a grave loss, then I can ethically justify myself in telling a lie over telling the truth. In other occasions I would still continue to prefer telling the truth over telling lies. Someone may point out that I am practicing double standard. But as I said earlier, I do not think so as I know that my behavior in this case would be characterized by ‘value preference’ and not by any ‘double standard’. And I find nothing ethically wrong in this type of value preference because here we are bound to choose between two evils. If we really face this situation and then choose the option which is less wicked it means that we can justify our-self by thinking that we are still ‘good’.

‘Double Standard’ is quite a different thing. It is such a way of thinking that I myself want to live an honorable life but I want to humiliate others. When I humiliate others, I get no extra benefit of it. So pure double standard is actually a pure selfish behavior.

When I apply this analysis to the study of the behavior of contemporary Muslim and Western world, I find that about all the behavior of Muslims which is considered negative by the western world, is actually a matter of ‘value preference’ for the Muslims. Muslims, how much bad their behavior may seem to others, in my complete honest and impartial opinion, fall in the category of ‘value preference’. They value so much to the honor of Prophet (PBUH) that they may not feel bad of their violent strikes. Even the extremist Muslim sects actually value their particular creeds so much that they become ready to even kill the people who belong to different sect. This extreme negative behavior can be regarded to be the result of their ignorance of the true Islamic teachings but it cannot be regarded as any pure selfish behavior.

Behavior of western powers, which seems bad to us, however cannot always be considered to be ‘value preference’. When there were reports of CIA that Iraq actually does not possess any WMD’s then the decision of initiating military attack on Iraq was a pure selfish decision. During the war time, when USA was pretending to act like as if it were just doing ‘value preference’, i.e. when USA’s aircraft were throwing evil weapons and ‘good’ food and other necessaries at the same time, USA’s this act cannot be considered ‘value preference’ in any way. Iraq was not so big a power that could pose any real threat to the security of USA. The dictator ruler was also not bad in himself because he was given the punishment for those acts, which he committed when he was USA’s ally. So in this case, a powerful country only humiliated a weak country without any moral objective. It is very important to understand that USA tends to commit ‘double standards’ under the disguise of ‘value preference’. In the case under review, they did it using the propaganda of WMDs.

The negative behavior of Muslims mostly is the result of their present state of ignorance. They sometime value some those things, and in such a manner, which actually do not come up to the standard of original and pure Islamic teachings. Muslim world is facing two main challenges which are first, the curse of their own ignorance and secondly, the ‘double standards’ of western powers.