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 : Canadian Political Free-for-All -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: seventh_son who wrote (10549)	9/14/2006 10:40:25 PM
From: Cogito Ergo Sum	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 37170

ss, I'm not judging here. All war is bad. You use the tools that you have. I'm simply pointing out that beyond these bombers this tactic is rare. There were the largely unsuccessful Kamikaze attacks in WWII. To be willing to use this tactic you have incredibly strong beliefs in something or are insane. We can rule out insane. Where in the West is there someone willing to strap on some explosives and die for a cause. Then there is the issue of the death penalty and method of execution. Beheading and stoning are still practised. richard.clark32.btinternet.co.uk and also.. richard.clark32.btinternet.co.uk Can you imagine that happening in Canada ? These, IMO, are significant cultural differences effecting the way one thinks. Frankly the beheading of captives I would imagine is less horrific to those in the Middle East than in North America. Notice I'm only saying cultural differences, not making a judgement. Of course in the days of the Crusades and Inquisition many Christians were willing to die in order to recapture the Holy Lands.. Many horrific (much more terrible than simple beheading) torture tactics were employed in the name of God by Christians... Al

To: seventh_son who wrote (10549)	9/14/2006 11:01:24 PM
From: Ichy Smith	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 37170

"True Al, but what is worse -- a suicide attacker, or someone who kills with high tech weapons from a distance and faces no consequences at all for the slaughter? Who would be the bigger coward?" Who is the bigger coward? What an odd question. Who is the bigger coward, the old man who sends a young man to die with a bomb strapped to his body in order to kill 10 or 20 other young people, or the man who tells a young man to drop a bomb and kill 100 people and then come home? Which one cared most about his young man? Neither of the old men needed to be brave, they were in no danger. When the King and his men rode out from the castle to fight with Horses and swords they had to be brave. Today to send a deluded child to die for nothing isn't brave, it is simply evil.