Those who decide to die while fighting for a cause they believe in are often called heroes in the USA (and other Western countries).
‘We’ on the other hand call those who do so from different backgrounds than ours terrorists. As to what is ‘rude’ or ‘bad manners’, few would disagree that such issues are purely subjective and mostly culturally driven…and change from place and time to place and time. Those who wish to follow any one of the countless sets of rules for the general term of etiquette seldom, if ever, do so just to ‘be nice’. When more honest, there is almost always an agenda involved. On Apr 14, 10:25 am, Chuck Bowling <[email protected]> wrote: > You are correct. I am not getting the point. > > I agree that the leaders of Al Queda would rather send their 'soldiers' to > do their dirty work. But why would that stop them from sending someone in > with a nuke or a dirty bomb if they assume that they are well enough hidden? > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 11:20 AM, [email protected] < > > > > > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > I see you are still not getting the point. > > > If any terroist first had nuclear weapons and by such I assume > > misslies. Then any launch will be easy enough for other powers to > > track down the launch site, then we hit them with our own misslies. > > The point is that if say the USA where attacked with nuclear misslies, > > they would retaliate in kind, as they must, I dare say the same is > > true for my goverment over here in the UK. > > > I doubt that Bin Laden wants to die, nor any top dog in any terrorist > > organisation, power being a corrupting influence and all that. Nope > > we can see that when we are hit by suicide bombers, these are normaly > > young easily infulenced people who have undergone an amount of good > > ole fashioned brain washing. Ahh the leaders though, nope I do not > > belive they would relish the idea of of being killed them selves. > > > On Apr 14, 4:24 pm, Chuck Bowling <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 4:53 AM, [email protected] < > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > Ohh my freind there is soooo much differance. Have we in retaliation > > > > for the twin towers flown any planes into any terroist buildings? > > > > No but we've flown quite a few Hawk missles into 'em. ;) > > > > > Will we if attack by nucleuar weapns retaliat with nuclear weaponms of > > our > > > > own? > > > > Tactical nuclear weapons can be as small as a couple of kilotons. > > Dropping a > > > bunker buster into a fortified cave in the side of a mountain would be a > > lot > > > easier than taking it down with a few hundred troops. > > > > If Chicago were nuked I can't imagine much outcry if we vaporized the > > side > > > of a mountain in retaliation... > > > > Can you now see the huuuuge differance? > > > > > You are correct terrorists seem to rejoice in the killing of the > > > > infidel, do you honestly belive they would rechoice in being nukked in > > > > their turn if they nuke us? > > > > If terrorist had the same type of economy and social structure that a > > nation > > > typically has then I would agree that nuclear weapons could be a > > deterrent. > > > But terrorist organizations don't have cities or central governments. > > They > > > are usually very decentralized and worry a lot less about assets being > > taken > > > out by a single bomb. In fact, I doubt that our biggest bomb would do > > much > > > more than put a minor dent into an organization like Bin Laden's which is > > > spread across most of the planet.
