Iran

[Redleg]

Japan was different, in that they were flying their planes into ships, the equivelant of a glory charge by a group of Western Knights. Its an extreme example but the thinking is somewhat different. As to Sri-Lanka, while I'm vagely aware of what you're talking about I must confess ignorance as to details. If they were Muslims my point stands. Regardless the Jihad Matyr was my main point and that stands.

So Japan was different , because they were killing by commiting suicide , the western knights were different because they were becoming glorious martyrs , you confess ignorance of the modern terrorist suicide bombers which pre date those in the mid-east , but regardless of that its the muslims that gave the world suicidal killers .....Right

Attempting to spin the difference is rather disingenuous. In one examble the suicidal effort is done in battle, in the other the suicidal effort is done against a civilian target. One was done in battle, one is done as a political tool.

Throwing Sri-Lanka into the discussion is also rather disingenuous since the use of terrorist bombing of civilians pre-dates even that conflict. And if one reviews history just a tad - they will find that while the Tamil Tigers have prefected the tactic, most of the first of the modern sucidial bombings happened in the Middle-East.

Since I am too Lazy to dig out a book - Wikipedia has a write up on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_bombing

Modern suicide bombing as a political tool can be traced back to the assisination of Czar Alexander II of Russia in 1881. Alexander fell victim to a Nihilist plot. While driving on one of the central streets of St. Petersburg, near the Winter Palace, he was mortally wounded by the explosion of hand-made grenades and died a few hours afterwards. The Czar was killed by the Pole Ignacy Hryniewiecki (1856-1881), who died while intentionally exploding the bomb in during the attack.

[Tribesman]

The Czar was killed by the Pole Ignacy Hryniewiecki (1856-1881), who died while intentionally exploding the bomb in during the attack.
Ah , so it was Polish Muslims then

Attempting to spin the difference is rather disingenuous. In one examble the suicidal effort is done in battle, in the other the suicidal effort is done against a civilian target.
Vive la difference Red , since yesterdays suicide bombing in Egypt was against a military target then how does that spin into it ?
most of the first of the modern sucidial bombings happened in the Middle-East.

Yep and most of the first suicide bombings in the Middle-East were also against military targets ..... so the point is....does any of that factually fit with this statement ....think about it, this is the culture that gave us suicide bombers. ?.....nope .

Funnily enough , the lazy link you gave puts the first suicide bombing in Israel down to the Japanese , but I suppose they could have been radical Muslim communist Japanese , just to fit with the "culture" thing
Members of the JRA became instructors in martial art and Kamikaze operations at several Hezbollah training camps bringing the suicide techniques to the Middle East.

[Redleg]

The Czar was killed by the Pole Ignacy Hryniewiecki (1856-1881), who died while intentionally exploding the bomb in during the attack.
Ah , so it was Polish Muslims then

spinning once again - someone needs Are you attempting to revise history once again?

[rotorgun]

In an attempt to get a little back on topic, consider this. If one looks at the situation dispassionately, the main reason that the Iranian threat to develop nuclear weapons is taken so seriously by the United State led coalition is that it would be a serious obstacle to the sucessful establishment of any kind of stabilization in the region. Assuming, for a moment, that the "liberation" of Iraq is accomplished. Bases, with an Anglo/American presence will still be needed for generations until the Iraqis are thouroughly democratized and their military, police, and infrastructure are sufficient for them to operate on their own. (IMHO) If this is so, Iran simply cannot be allowed to have a strike capability capable of harming such a force "in being" so badly as a nuclear weapon may. I qoute:

Then the sixth angel poured out his bowl on the great river Euphrates, and its water was dried up, so that the way of the kings from the east might be prepared.(Revelation 16:12, New KJV)

In military terms, a pre-emptive strike by Iran against the coalition could lead to a defeat of the conventional forces in Iraq, destabilizing the strategic situation, and opening up the region for an invasion of Isreal by a "Persian led" coalition of Islamic nations.

And they gathered then together to a place called in Hebrew, Armegeddon. (Revelation 16:16, New KJV)

While I allow that the above quotes are a bit melodramatic, such a fear is already on the minds of some planners. A counterattack by Iran is a possibility for real, and quite plausable. From a military viewpoint, it would be essential to eliminate such a capability-by diplomacy if possible, or by force if required. Any armchair general in the world can forsee such a scenario. Do you think that the Pentagon, or the UK equivalent (forgive my ignorance) do not? No, for any chance of long term sucess in the Persian Gulf, Iran's threat must be nuetralized. I shall not debate the moral implications of this situation in my post; many others have already done so eloquently. I ask you my freinds, to consider the question objectively. If this war in Iraq is lost, the whole region could be plunged into utter darkness and political chaos. While I am bitterly opposed to the hypocratic premises that my country, and it's allies, have entered upon such a venture, we cannot afford to fail. Too much has been lost, too many lives, too much treasure, too much honor. I am deeply saddened by the events that have transpired.

May God help us all if we falter. I pray for our sucess, and for the peace in the Middle East. May God give wisdom to Christian and Muslim alike.

[Divinus Arma]

In other words:

Boomski.

[rotorgun]

In other words:

Boomski.

Not nessecarily. I am not advocating a pre-emptive nuclear strike against Iran, a convetional one perhaps, and that only if diplomacy, sanctions, and international pressure fail. It will be Boomski, however, if Iran is allowed to proceed with their plans. Their government is too fanatic under its current regime to resist the temptation of nuclear confrontation with the west. There is too much at stake for them. They must be curtailed, or at least delayed (IMHO) for the plans of the Bush/Blair/whoever coalition to suceed. This is the can of worms that they have opened. The bed has indeed been made, and must now be layed upon.

[spmetla]

Like rotogun said, a premptive nuclear strike on Iran is not needed. Besides what would be the message put out by stopping nuclear ambitions with nuclear force? Not to mention the repurctions that would happen throughout the world and not to mention that fully justified rage the the muslims throughout the world would express.
This problem needs to be solved diplomatically and if not that way then militarily but with conventional forces. Too bad Russia and China won't even agree to an economic embargo. The Chinese ambassador to the UN said something to the extent of "this situation is delicate and we don't want to make it more complicated" in other words "we need their oil and don't think it our problem, scew you"