First of all, I think that anyone with the audacity and stupidity, who is willing to strap a bomb to himself for a kamakazi mission is probably crazy.
Secondly, I understand that the US and Isreal has the best technology and pretty good aim - to prevent harm to innocent people. However, bombs do not have eyes, and no matter how great technolgy gets, accidents will always happen.
A person that sits on a bus and blows himself up, killing 10 people and wounding 40 is no different then a 500 lb bomb that hits its target and wipe out a newarby apartment building, intentionally or accidentally. In the end, innocent people die. Do you agree?
2006-07-18 06:00:49 · 12 answers · asked by Perfect Specimen 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
~May I remind you that the only country that has dropped an atomic bomb on anyone was the U.S. I think that if you check, you will find that the World War II technology used in those bombings certainly did not prevent harm to innocent people. If in doubt, just as the people in Japan who experienced it.
2006-07-18 06:12:26 · answer #1 · answered by damonkey 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bzzzt Wrong
Unless that suicide guy can carry a 500 pound explosive charge the end result will be much less.
Most SB'er use 10 pounds of explosive. (easy to conceal on public transportation) Do the math 10X50 = one 500 pound bomb.
Another false conception is the strength of bombs. Most people have a movie or Hollywood idea of what happens when a bomb goes off. Real bombs are not as effective as the movie bombs.
2006-07-18 13:16:00 · answer #2 · answered by 43 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Convincing someone that strapping a bomb on and walking into a market/bus/etc. is a one way ticket to heaven is pretty shrewd. That particular bomb does have eyes and expensive technology isn't needed to do the damage. Plus that person becomes a hero to his or her people, which fuels the fire of hate and perpetuates the vicious circle of aggression and retaliation. Because whatever Lebanon or Pallestine throw at Israel, Israel is going to strike back with 100x the force. I'm glad I don't live in the middle of that mess.
2006-07-18 13:14:57 · answer #3 · answered by shycello 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
First off, the word 'Humane' doesn't fit.
One is an accident. Innocents are not "targetted" by 500lb bombs and this is not terrorism. However, some nut with a bomb sitting on a bus is intentionally targetting women and children to murder babies and their mothers and cause terror.
2006-07-18 13:07:10 · answer #4 · answered by jamie 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You are going to have to ask John (UNfit) Bolton who claims he can see a difference between a child killed by an Israeli (and I would presume an American/British) bomb and a child killed by a suicide bomber. Moral relativism is not the mantra of the Left but the Right, since Ollie North, has always been able to see the moral difference between who we kill and whom they kill. Murder is murder and we should all say so!
2006-07-18 13:17:27 · answer #5 · answered by Edward K 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
When you see your family is killed by f16 from the sky when you see the USA veto a call to end bombing of the f16 . When you see the world is doing nothing to help stop the Israeli madness what can a Palestinian do . He is living because death is not calling on him to ease his life . A Palestinian life is worthless without freedom
2006-07-18 13:08:25 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Who was wrong is always decided by who wins. In the revolutionary war when we began using guerrilla warfare that was thought to be against the rules of war also.
2006-07-18 13:05:51 · answer #7 · answered by steve 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think that neither is more humane, and both are ridiculous ways of solving conflicts.
2006-07-18 13:05:01 · answer #8 · answered by illustrat_ed_designs 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Killing innocent people is wrong period.
2006-07-18 13:03:30 · answer #9 · answered by HelloKitty 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
True.Dont let them tellyou otherwise.
2006-07-18 13:05:11 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋