I have Never Read An article with which I have so Vehemently Disagreed

[Hosakawa Tito]

Until both sides decide they really love their children more than they hate each other the situation will continue.

[Fragony]

Until both sides decide they really love their children more than they hate each other the situation will continue.

I don't see Israeli's turning their children into suicide bombers, it will stop when it stops

[Shibumi]

I don't see Israeli's turning their children into suicide bombers, it will stop when it stops

I do not get the aversion people have with suicide bombing.

The US and Israel has the same thing, just more expensive and less clever - called "smart bombs/missiles". Only difference is that one side has better financial means whereas the other has more staunch support.

Way more "innocents" have been killed by collateral damage than in suicide attacks, so who can say one is worse than the other?

Ok so some people in Palestine will turn their children into suicide bombers, just like some Israeli parents will turn their kids into mindless drones who do not mind bombing rural areas with the push of a button.

I can not really say what is worse, main point however should be that it should come to and end.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I do not get the aversion people have with suicide bombing.

The US and Israel has the same thing, just more expensive and less clever - called "smart bombs/missiles". Only difference is that one side has better financial means whereas the other has more staunch support.

Way more "innocents" have been killed by collateral damage than in suicide attacks, so who can say one is worse than the other?

Ok so some people in Palestine will turn their children into suicide bombers, just like some Israeli parents will turn their kids into mindless drones who do not mind bombing rural areas with the push of a button.

I can not really say what is worse, main point however should be that it should come to and end.

Many people consider suicide itself vile under such purposes, and grooming others to commit it even more so.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Many people consider suicide itself vile under such purposes,

Me, I think Shibumi actually hit this one on the head. And if the choice is between some “smart bomb made in America” or terrorist 1.0, I take 1.0. There's a good possibility 1.0 fails to detonate, decides not to or whatever, and there is a lot less mess even if he does explode (there's only so much explosives you can fit on a terrorist, compared to what you can drop from a plane).

and grooming others to commit it even more so.

But I admit that I'm not a fan of this part, either.

[Samurai Waki]

Yes... except for all that sectarian violence going on in Iraq-- suicide bombers have been doing a waaay better job at killing each other than American Bombs.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Me, I think Shibumi actually hit this one on the head. And if the choice is between some “smart bomb made in America” or terrorist 1.0, I take 1.0. There's a good possibility 1.0 fails to detonate, decides not to or whatever, and there is a lot less mess even if he does explode (there's only so much explosives you can fit on a terrorist, compared to what you can drop from a plane).



But I admit that I'm not a fan of this part, either.

I've always found the IRA much scarier, their terrorists are able to commit multiple operations, and they came within a hair's bredth of killing Margaret Thatcher. They did this after decades of using the same tactics, the best Al-Quaida have EVER done is 9/11 and that only worked because it was a complete blindside.

[Papewaio]

Smart bombs weren't so smart in the first war with Iraq... as proven by the US auditors.

And even now plenty of occassions have these smart bombs blowing up markets, weddings and other groups of people. So quite frankly you can be killed for just having fun, being yourself and partaking in life, be it by a poorly trained brainwashed kid with a bomb vest, or by a highly trained one with a game controller and a predator drone.

[HopAlongBunny]

Collateral damage.

I love that term. It seems to imply that the deaths; while real enough for the people who are part of the "toll"; were not intended. You drop bombs, they explode, ppl die; it is impossible to claim that the actor did not "intend" for ppl to die.

As to the article, it is slanted, biased and patently one sided. Like most journalism it's written for a target audience. Best read side by side with a similar article from the local paper of your choice.

[Shibumi]

Many people consider suicide itself vile under such purposes, and grooming others to commit it even more so.

And here I thought - it is sweet and fitting to die for one's country.

Your post lack taste.

[Hax]

@Shibumi: Although, in all fairness, you might argue there is a difference between going to war with the possibility of dying (regardless of its actual chance), and going to war with the sole purpose of dying. Perhaps.

[Shibumi]

Yes... except for all that sectarian violence going on in Iraq-- suicide bombers have been doing a waaay better job at killing each other than American Bombs.

But then, American bombs has killed more people than suicide bombers.

I think the reason is three-fold.

1. Most people are a little scared of death (the great unknown) and rather enjoy their existence here and now. The concept of someone seeking self-destruction when not in agonizing pain or the like is quite foreign and off-putting.

2. Most people are also angered at the covert nature of it. For all their stealthy qualities, the smart weapons et al used by US forces and some of our allies are used in more or less overt fashion -- in declared bombing campaigns and the like. You are not doomed simply because you got on bus X rather than the bus following 10 minutes later. Which is not to say that ending up dead because the bomb missed or blew up too near where you were is truly expected, but that you don't wander around always wondering if the smart bomb is coming.

3. The idea of deliberately targeting the unarmed/innocent angers many people. "Collateral damage" is so titled because those victims, while no less dead or injured, were not the intended target.

1. If people understand the value of life, they should really endevour to understand what make people strap on bombs even more.

2. That point is laughable at best. A suicide bomber is more covert than a bomb out of a blue sky?

3. Ah, see, here you are very very wrong. A US bomb killing someone in a dictatorship is killing an innocent. Whereas a terrorist striking someone in a democracy is targeting the power base, the voter. Get the difference?

Smart bombs weren't so smart in the first war with Iraq... as proven by the US auditors.

And even now plenty of occassions have these smart bombs blowing up markets, weddings and other groups of people. So quite frankly you can be killed for just having fun, being yourself and partaking in life, be it by a poorly trained brainwashed kid with a bomb vest, or by a highly trained one with a game controller and a predator drone.

Agreed, those "smart" bombs have gone all over the place.

Collateral damage.

I love that term. It seems to imply that the deaths; while real enough for the people who are part of the "toll"; were not intended. You drop bombs, they explode, ppl die; it is impossible to claim that the actor did not "intend" for ppl to die.

As to the article, it is slanted, biased and patently one sided. Like most journalism it's written for a target audience. Best read side by side with a similar article from the local paper of your choice.

agreed.

Don't shoot rockets from urban area's if collateral damage makes you a sad panda, I couldn't care less

the heart of the problem;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uu6Ond1ESq8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLKk...eature=related from 10:00

^ perfectly normal tv

The thing I dislike about your posts, is that you so often are well informed, whereas at the same time so often are not. At times you are spot on, at other times not.

@Shibumi: Although, in all fairness, you might argue there is a difference between going to war with the possibility of dying (regardless of its actual chance), and going to war with the sole purpose of dying. Perhaps.

Absolutely, it would be way more noble (not to mention stupid) to go to war with the intent of dying. However, I just fail to see the difference between an American child having his parents urging him to join the ROTC, who then join the marine corps, sit in a helicopter and spray bullets in urban areas - to a child who grows up to strap on a bomb and decide to die for his country.

I do not support either. Would you?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I do not get the aversion people have with suicide bombing.

The US and Israel has the same thing, just more expensive and less clever - called "smart bombs/missiles". Only difference is that one side has better financial means whereas the other has more staunch support.

Way more "innocents" have been killed by collateral damage than in suicide attacks, so who can say one is worse than the other?

I think the reason is three-fold.

1. Most people are a little scared of death (the great unknown) and rather enjoy their existence here and now. The concept of someone seeking self-destruction when not in agonizing pain or the like is quite foreign and off-putting.

2. Most people are also angered at the covert nature of it. For all their stealthy qualities, the smart weapons et al used by US forces and some of our allies are used in more or less overt fashion -- in declared bombing campaigns and the like. You are not doomed simply because you got on bus X rather than the bus following 10 minutes later. Which is not to say that ending up dead because the bomb missed or blew up too near where you were is truly expected, but that you don't wander around always wondering if the smart bomb is coming.

3. The idea of deliberately targeting the unarmed/innocent angers many people. "Collateral damage" is so titled because those victims, while no less dead or injured, were not the intended target.

[Fragony]

Way more "innocents" have been killed by collateral damage than in suicide attacks, so who can say one is worse than the other?

Don't shoot rockets from urban area's if collateral damage makes you a sad panda, I couldn't care less

the heart of the problem;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uu6Ond1ESq8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLKk...eature=related from 10:00

^ perfectly normal tv

[Hax]

They did this after decades of using the same tactics, the best Al-Quaida have EVER done is 9/11 and that only worked because it was a complete blindside.

Dar es-Salaam?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

And here I thought - it is sweet and fitting to die for one's country.

Your post lack taste.

My post lacks taste, or my posts lack taste?

Regardless, going to war is risking death, blowing yourself up is suicide. While the point has been somewhat obscurred in modern warfare - war is not about dying, or killing the enemy, it is about winning. That can be done without a single injury, though it is very difficult.

Dar es-Salaam?

...has not been repeated, which is my point. Meanwhile, Gerry Adams, terrorist par excellence is Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland, they've never been able to pin anything on him - including being at Bloody Sunday.

[Hax]

...has not been repeated, which is my point. Meanwhile, Gerry Adams, terrorist par excellence is Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland, they've never been able to pin anything on him - including being at Bloody Sunday.

But you said that al-Qaeda has not been able to repeatedly do terrorist stuff?