Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Katelew who wrote (195267)	8/6/2006 11:52:15 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 281500

Has anyone told you yet that the phrase 'homicide bomber' is redundant? It depends doesn't it? A "bomber" doesn't have to blow up his explosives for the purpose of killing people. It could be to blow up an unoccupied vehicle or location (power plant or tower). And I think we need to emphasize the term "Suicide Bomber" for the purpose of denoting that the bomber was so fanatical in his/her mission goal, that they were willing to sacrifice their own lives to achieve it. Now, against a military target, this might be considered "brave".. warrior killing warriors, ala Japanese Kamikazes. But when a suicide bomber (or any other kind) deliberately targets unarmed/uninvolved civilians for the purpose of achieving some form of political end, then it is terrorism. And we've seen terrorism used against civilian populations for hundreds of years. It's no different than the justification that Churchill used to commence fire-boming of German cities after Coventry was bombed (although it's controversial which side actually commenced the use of night-time "terror bombing as deliberate wartime policy first). But there's something that I think we all should find repulsive about the use of children (under 18) to sacrifice themselves in suicide bombings against any targets. Hawk