|
| | 
Grognard fantôme
Last Seen:
Today @ 6:00 PM
Posts: 7,240
Visits: 9,604
|
| I read an article recently in which discourse from interviews of captured suicide bomber trainers was provided. I learned something from this that I had not previously known.
The common suicide bomb is made of gunpowder, mercury, acetone, a light switch, some wire, nails or other objects for shrapnel and vest. Total cost $150. The real key to their destructive capacity is to detonate on in an enclosed area in which there are lots of people. A grenade in an elevator could easily kill everyone there I'll wager, whereas a grenade out on open ground will have much less devastating effect. It was common in WWII for ONE bomb to effectively sink a ship, or effectively cripple it and kill literally thousands of people. It not so much about the size of it, as it is about the way it is deployed.
Anyway, the fact that Iranian armaments of ANY kind, be they pistols, bayonets, or cruise missiles, are filtering across, is absolutely unacceptable. I say we nuke 'em tomorrow. That'll teach those evil mullahs to say that bombing US is an act of divine justice. Give 'em a little taste of nuclear armaggeddon, and lets see how much lip they give back about developing their uranium enrichment program . . . Damn shame all those nukes are just sitting around rusting when they could be used to quell despots. |
--
"'The front' is wherever you stop running away. Get used to it. This is what modern warfare looks like." K T Cat |  |  |
| |
| | 
Day-Saver!
Last Seen:
11/15/2008 9:50 AM
Posts: 5,280
Visits: 27,161
|
| | |
| |
Grognard fantôme
Last Seen:
Today @ 6:00 PM
Posts: 7,240
Visits: 9,604
|
| | No, not a bad day at all. I'd just like to see this whole Middle Eastern "anti-West Jihad" war thing over with sooner rather than later. And I'd also like to see "us" win, though in fact, the spread of democracy across the region would be a win for everyone, not just us. Just as the defeat of Fascist Japan was ultimately a win for the Japanese people, though tens of thousands were killed by Fat Man and Little Boy. The obvious futility of continued resistance demonstrated through that display of force led the Japanese leadership to surrender unconditionally, the war ended, people stopped killing one another, and Japan became a happy, democratic place (for the most part). Shame this can't happen everywhere as a result of our hesitancy to insist that the world play by "our" rules, or else. Seems like if you have the power to save a life, you're obliged to do so, but then that would be Imperialist meddling in a "traditional" culture though wouldn't it? |
--
"'The front' is wherever you stop running away. Get used to it. This is what modern warfare looks like." K T Cat | | | |
| |
| | 
Elite Pathogen
Last Seen:
Today @ 4:20 PM
Posts: 4,387
Visits: 10,907
|
| | |
| | 
Second Lieutenant
Last Seen:
11/17/2008 8:17 AM
Posts: 1,433
Visits: 3,707
|
| | |
| |
Day-Saver!
Last Seen:
11/15/2008 9:50 AM
Posts: 5,280
Visits: 27,161
|
| | |
| |
Grognard fantôme
Last Seen:
Today @ 6:00 PM
Posts: 7,240
Visits: 9,604
|
| Two simple question to Ness and LC. Did the Japanese agree to surrender unconditionally either before or after the first bomb was dropped?
Did the Japanese agree to surrender unconditionally AFTER the second bomb was dropped?
People will always find excuses to hate each other, the idea that hatred would go away if democracies abstained from the use of force is not realistic. Moreover, excuses to love each other have little historical precedent of providing sufficient basis to curtail ongoing aggression. Take for example, Israel-Palestine, the DMZ in Korea, the Pakistan-India border, Kosovo, Rwanda, etc., etc.
Unfortunately, even people who grow up in the most nurturing, caring environments can nonetheless turn out to be selfish, sociopaths: many of the suicide bombers of recent years, and most serial killers being prime examples. Even Hitler, and Stalin seem to have enjoyed fairly normal childhoods. In short, even in the most enlightened, 'progressive,' and socialistic of nations (e.g., Canada) there simply is no way to insure that an emmanent personal-drive to be a good citizen will predominant in every single individual. Canada has its share of serial killers, and career criminals, just as does everywhere else. This is why we unfortunately need penal systems within any society, both to act as a deterrent on the malicious predispositions of the sociopath segment, and as a last-ditch, remove them from society mechanism. It is similar logic that underlies the existence of the UN Security Council, UN 'peacekeeping' forces, and UN coordinate military actions, such as the Korean War, and the resolutions requiring Ba'athist Iran to submit to regular WMD inspections.
The irony is that, so many people who agree that the UN, and similar consensual international mechanisms are needed to meliorate international conflict, very often fail to understand that, words which are never backed up with actions, soon become useless either to influence, or cajol a certain type of person, and a certain type of polity, which is similar in many respects to a sociopath. |
--
"'The front' is wherever you stop running away. Get used to it. This is what modern warfare looks like." K T Cat | | | |
| |
| | 
I am pot
Last Seen:
4/4/2006 6:06 PM
Posts: 1,670
Visits: 2,512
|
| Scipio, you're still thinking in terms of traditional warfare when territory could be conquered... When people could be slaughtered or executed enmass. Think of the pure public outrage if that occoured now?
All of Japan was at war with the US. Dropping a bomb on Japan was dropping a bomb on the enemy. All of Islam is not at war with the US... Only a tiny minority. Punishing 1000 for the actions of 1? When japan was bombed, 99.8% of the population were probably directly involved in war efforts. Right now, it's probably reverse... Can you justify the killing of 100k civilians with a nuke because you're pretty sure you just killed 2000 terrorists too? When have you crossed the line into bein a much greater terrorist than the ones you are hunting? With that attitude in mind, I suggest we find a way to cause the earth to implode and ensure we've killed all the terrorists.
While there are obvious social and religious problems I have with this senario, I bet it would stop a great deal of attacks.
I would suggest a threat to bomb a muslim site would encourage a terroist attack... Hate breeds hate. All that would do is inspire new terrorists! There was 3k 'insurgents' in Iraq prior to the US invasion. There are 30k now. Imagine how many would be inspired to join the insurgency if their holy sites were attacked? Why enrage others that aren't terrorists (yet?) Moreover, do you think such a thing may inspire others similar to what happened in Britan? Thinking as a terrorist... I bomb something, America bombs something of ours, new terrorists inspired, cycle repeat!
Back to the arms issue though... Can we be certain it was Iran's government that sent the weapons or could this just of easily been an individual effort? Ya, it would probably also be wrong to have sold/lost the weaponry to someone else... But the evidence here simply links the bombs to being made with iranian parts. If a Canadian man smuggled a bomb into the US, does the US declare war on and randomly bomb Canada or does it hunt down the single Canadian man responsible? I know the Iranian government should be responsible for knowing where the weapons they manufacture go and they can be held accountable there... But immididately blaming this on the Iran government and consider threats?
People will always find excuses to hate each other, the idea that hatred would go away if democracies abstained from the use of force is not realistic.
Of course not... A show of force is required and Democracies need to be able to back their actions. However, where an when to initiate these displays of force is another issue... When will shows of force inspire more hatred then what it solves?
very often fail to understand that, words which are never backed up with actions, soon become useless either to influence, or cajol a certain type of person
I am in favor of backing up words with actions and it is ultimately essential. Such as an invasion of Afghanistan. However in the case of Iraq, we've used words to back our actions. WMD's and harbouring of terrorists (9/11) being the 2 major reasons for Iraq invasion. When it was discovered that these words were incorrect (which IU still beleive could have been done before the war was declared, but history is history), we changed our words to backup our actions. No weapons of mass destruction hey? Oh.. umm.. he was a dictator right? Ummm... what else can we call it.. despot? Ya thats it!
If action is used to back words, then great. It's when you've confused the situation and are now using words to back your actions that you need to realize something has gone wrong an re-evaluate the situation. |
--
--- Shouldn't we be too concerned with terror and war to be discussing this right now? --- | | | |
| |
| |
Second Lieutenant
Last Seen:
11/17/2008 8:17 AM
Posts: 1,433
Visits: 3,707
|
| | |
|
|
|
