Sorkoi..1.Are you denying the Abu Nidal was killed by Saddam's thugs? swhitebull...NO - I said he WAS murdered by his thugs. You misunderstood my sarcasm. Didn't Saddam's news apparatus say that Abu Nidal committed suicide by shooting himself in the head, multiple times? I always thought that was the ultimate in trigger control...

you asked if weapons make distinctions, not people, ding-dong. yours, and his grand strategy, when wrong, is strikingly similar. you guys refuse hear what people say to you.

'I do indeed believe that that the world to come, promised in the Bible, will be superior to this life. I also believe that this life is a precious gift, given by God, over which I am to exercide a wise stewardship." Indeed. Where would christianity be without the blood of its martyrs? Would you also you condemn as despicable men, women and children at Massada- who chose sucide rather than surrender?

and children?...how do you get a child to commit suicide?

..does mean that Israel and Revolutionary Iran were allies during arms-to-Iran period, was 'Reagan' an ally of the Ayatollahs who also allied to Saudi Arabia and the contras...). .... Actually, Israeli middlemen DID provide equipment to the Iranian military during the Iran-Contra affair. Despite the Ayatollahs' pathological hatred of the Israelis, that hatred had NOT - and probably still has not - percolated to the professional military forces, who enjoyed warm relations with the israelis during the time of the Shah. For example, LONG after the Ayatollahs seized power, Israel was providing replacement and maintenance parts for Iranian F4 Phantoms and to some extent the F14. Same for the tank parks. So yes, there was a large degree of cooperation durinf that time period - just NOT witht the Ayatollahs. swhitebull

I maybe wrong but I thought they were children at Massada?

..I maybe wrong but I thought they were children at Massada ... The parents killed their own children. swhitebull

"you asked if weapons make distinctions, not people, ding-dong." Is this NRA line: people kill people guns do not kill people. I was using a metonym-e.g The White house does not issue press statement some of the staff inside the white house do. Perhaps, its my reading which is at fault but rather your understanding.

" Actually, Israeli middlemen DID provide equipment to the Iranian military during the Iran-Contra affair. Despite the Ayatollahs' pathological hatred of the Israelis, that hatred had NOT - and probably still has not - percolated to the professional military forces, who enjoyed warm relations with the israelis during the time of the Shah. For example, LONG after the Ayatollahs seized power, Israel was providing replacement and maintenance parts for Iranian F4 Phantoms and to some extent the F14. Same for the tank parks. So yes, there was a large degree of cooperation durinf that time period - just NOT witht the Ayatollahs." Thanks SWB.

""you asked if weapons make distinctions, not people, ding-dong." Is this NRA line: people kill people guns do not kill people. I was using a metonym-e.g The White house does not issue press statement some of the staff inside the white house do. Perhaps, its my reading which is at fault but rather your understanding " -- sorkoi2003 ------ ""their lives will be spared when we send one tactical nuclear bunker buster to do the job of 100,000 men." Will this tactical nuclear bunker buster will make distinctin between civlian, non-combatant and combatants in Iraq? " -- sorkoi2003 ----- I admit I don't know the details of a possible nuclear "bunker-buster" but I'd guess/hope the point is something that would borrow deep and have a very small nuclear warhead, such that the (ground-level) radius of effect of the weapon would not be much greater than large conventional weapons. There were many facilities in Iraq where such a device might concevably have been used with little to no increased risk to the civilian population. As with all weapons targeting, we'd still apply the same extraordinary care toward reducing collateral damage as we always do--at least as much as any other nation, and far more than most--which always factors in weapons effects. At that point, it's actually more incumbant on the other guy to make the distinction between combattant and non-combattant, as we can pretty much only go by the outward indications: the most likely way to suffer civilian casualties is to comingle your military with your civilians. The safest place for civilians during an airstrike by the USAF is in their homes. Displacedjim