Comments on: It’s Still Not Chemical Warfare — Israeli Edition

By: professional carpet cleaners houston

professional carpet cleaners houston — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 21:50:48 +0000

Well, the article is in reality the greatest on this worthw hile topic. I harmonise with your conclusions and definitely will thirstily look forward to your approaching updates. Simply saying thanks can not just be adequate, for the huge lucidity in your writing. I will instantly grab your rss feed to stay abreast of any kind of updates. Admirable work and much success in your business enterprize!

By: Ward Gibbons, USMC Retd.

Ward Gibbons, USMC Retd. — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 06:35:31 +0000

Have you ever been in Combat? Combat so close that you had to resort to your fixed blade knife to stay alive?
My position is that ANY weapon we can develop/deploy that will save American/Human lives is a weapon that should be in use NOW!!
What if your son or daughter needed this or a similar weapon to stay alive? Would you want them to have it then? I KNOW I WOULD!
1LegMarine

By: Michael

Michael — Fri, 08 Sep 2006 17:26:14 +0000

There are two improtant things to remember. One is that it only takes one side to make a war. The other is that there are some societies that are so toxic, so heinous that they must be changed.
The means to do this must be controled as much for the “good guys” as for the bad. War is a brutal thing and a guidline to what is permisable assists in the retention of the “good guys” humanity, especially since civilians will be the majority of casualties in any full scale war.
It is all too

By: JF

JF — Thu, 31 Aug 2006 23:02:34 +0000

To try and differentiate between humane and inhumane combat tactics is to expose perhaps our biggest liability. We generally value all human life; for this we are percieved as weak by the standards of our 9th century-minded enemies. In the West, when the most heinous and monstrous of homicidial child abusers is sentenced to death, even as the lights dim, or the syringe is pressed, there will be a constituancy objecting to the execution. It is this constituancy that our enemies will use to defeat us, to much greater effectiveness than guns or IEDs.
The day when our society values the destruction of terrorism higher than the value of life; will be the day our enemies look at each other and wordlessly know they’re living on borrowed time.

By: Bruce

Bruce — Wed, 23 Aug 2006 00:29:30 +0000

“A clean war with a good purpose” will stay in the imagination I think.

By: Noah

Noah — Sat, 29 Jul 2006 03:28:40 +0000

Mike, true ignorance is assuming that your point of view is the only valid one, unusually demonstrated by denigration of any opinion that conflicts with your own. The US and Israeli governments and media call Hezbollah terrorists while others call them freedom fighters. It all depends on one

By: Papa Ray

Papa Ray — Sat, 29 Jul 2006 03:19:32 +0000

The rocket canisters are filled with liquid. The picture shows a man carrying one that is either empty or he can lift at least 250 lbs. Which is not that unusual for a weight lifter but he doesn’t have the build.
Papa Ray
West Texas
USA

By: Jason

Jason — Fri, 28 Jul 2006 19:32:31 +0000

“And to be honest…what difference does it make? It’s all murder. It’s all different ways of ending life.“
DS, the difference is that civilized societies have developed laws of war, in part to ensure that we all understand the potential repercussions of our actions (be they legitimate or not) and in part to ensure that we can identify a justified war from an unjustified one (and prosecute the offenders after the fact). At the least, it allows us to imagine that we are possible of fighting a clean war for a good purpose, even if there are the outliers and exceptions to that general set of rules.

By: DS

DS — Fri, 28 Jul 2006 12:52:44 +0000

What I find disturbing about this whole issue is that the powers that be are actually debating what types of killing are 'acceptable' or not. Think "incindiaries" are less humane than thermobaric weapons? Only to the observer. With an incindiary device, the victim burns to death. It looks worse on the outside, but in all truth, once the nerve endings are burnt to a crisp all you feel is what your brain is perceiving...which can actually be a cold feeling in burn cases. When a victim dies because of a direct hit by thermobaric weapon, they are literally blown to bits...not vaporized...blown to bits by the shockwave that results from the explosion. Which do you think is more painful? And to be honest...what difference does it make? It's all murder. It's all different ways of ending life. Yes, burning takes longer to end the life, but the end result is the same. To judge the technical aspects of murder acts to desensitize people in respects to it. I'm not a pacifist, but I do believe that to keep everything in perspective, life must be valued, and murder must remain taboo to society. When you start creating 'acceptable' types of murder, you begin the decline of civil life.

By: Mike

Mike — Fri, 28 Jul 2006 03:36:35 +0000

Yet again the liberals and people of that side show how ignorant they are and there true intentions; to bend facts and tell lies to make good look bad and the bad (hezballah, terrorist) look good.