Visit the Archives for U.S. Politics Online -- U.S. Politics Online . net
To add an extra dimension to the thread without hopefully derailing it, what about land mines?
At least a suicide bomber, assuming he's taking out a military target, is a guided missle who can make sure he's hitting the intended target. If the mission fails, generally only he dies, or noone dies. Even if he's taking out civilians, he primarily takes out enemy civilians and not civilian members on his cause's side of the issue.
Contrast that with land mines, which are mindless and can blow up ANYONE on ANY side of a military confrontation, even friendlies.
Is the use of land-mines moral?
First, I'd bet $1 that my girl sensei would have little problem putting most self-professed "real men" straight on their asses without breaking a sweat. The simple fact that an individual lacks a Y chromosome doesn't mean that she's somehow weak.
Second, I find that most men who talk about how they're "real men" are simply making up for their own insecurity about themselves and who they are. The more bravado, the more insecurity. And, it seems to me that a real man is one who knows many different ways to handle a situation, instead of defaulting to violence because he can't think of anything else.
Third, I've participated in violent conflicts. Sometimes they happen where there is no "fault." Sometimes there is enough to go around. Not sure what your point is.
Finally, you're not making any sense with your sudden reference to justice. Perhaps you could 'splain a bit more?
What art do you take, Pram? Just professional curiousity.
It isn't completely off topic, which is kind of nice. I look at the kiyoshi of my dojo - he's a very calm, very quiet guy. He sees violence as a last resort. However, if he's pushed to that resort, he will fuck someone up. A pacifist? Maybe. A real man? Absolutely.
I think the point that differentiates this is that it was a tactic of last resort. Not in that it was desperation.....but that it was practical within the context of air-sea battle.
The plane, already in the air, once damaged, out of fuel, etc. is used in it's final descent as a weapon. For the most part, it was an improvised act to end the individual plane's continuous combat.
The what goes up must come down angle is unique to the Kamikaze example. The other maybe unique angle is that it was a military vs. military tactic. The planes were clearly marked and the pilots were uniformed military.
First they came for the mimes, and I did not speak out, because I was a mime.
War is phycological and sometimes there's not meant to be any answers. Can someone take it too far, yes of course. But there is the difference between some kind of loonatic (such as Hitler or religious kook) and some one who's lost it while under attack because of the situation. If your loosing a fight you may result to unusual measures - that is not cowardice. You can't fault a man on an individual basis for defending his home or his basic rights.
Wushu is a form of kung fu, very good for establishing control of the center line. Also tends to flow very well when mixed with Muay Thai (similar stances and setups)
Also, it occurs to me that PT-109 under John Kennedy rammed a submarine once upon a time. Granted, his vessel survived, but the mindset must be the same.