ucee054

The International Court of Justice (ICJ), in its advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, issued 8 July 1996, unanimously interprets the text of Article VI as implying that

"There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control."

Are you kidding me? Vietnam ended forty years ago!

They've had decades to come up with something better.

They just don't give a fuck about civilians.

Hell, they don't even care that much about US grunts, if the "hillbilly armour" and servicewoman-rape scandals are anything to go by.

The fact that you do not find their motives "reasonable" intrigues me. Is it their methods you disagree with, or their grievances?

If you think their grievances are not legitimate, does it change when you substitute "gold rush" for "oil rush" and "red skin" for "rag head"?

(By the way I'm not thrilled about getting bombed. I almost lost a friend in Boston.)

Occupation is one reason the kamikaze may feel like a cornered rat. Indirect occupation is another.

This can be because the perpetrator (USA) is giving weapons to the actual occupier (Israel), because the perpetrator is implementing a sanctions/embargo regime amounting to a mediaeval siege that killed half a million, mostly children (Iraq) or because the perpetrator has installed a "government" in your country to do the occupation for it (Lebanon, Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, Ethiopia etc etc etc Saudi Arabia).

If you google for the jihadis' motives, you'll find that they mention all three.

Given that the actual 911 attackers were Saudis, I would have thought that US sponsored tyranny in Saudi Arabia would have been their main motive, but it appears that they were significantly motivated by fellow-feeling for Palestinians.

And try googling for "suicide attack India" or "suicide attack Kashmir" or "suicide attack Sri Lanka", you'll find plenty of hits.

Just because South Americans haven't done it (yet) (that we know of), it doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. Like I told you, you've had at least 2500 years warning.

Hell, there's even the American saying "Give me Liberty or give me Death!"

I have referenced academic study on this topic elsewhere, go read it.

If "effective" includes "not killing innocent civilians" then sleeping gas would work much better than what they are dropping now.

If smoke or CS would work better, well it's the military's responsibility, not mine, to the the R&D to pick the right tool to protect civilians as required by law.

It doesn't look like they give a fuck.

Don't try to justify Israel to me because you will look stupid when I list for you Israeli sources admitting Israel's aggression.

Starting with the Israeli national archives which have detailed the ethnic cleansing in 1948.

Stay on topic. Don't justify Israel. Just don't go there. Please.

Particularly drone "signature strikes" against first responders, which have killed MANY more people than 911.

Decide which standard you want to have, and then realize that it applies to your favoured side too.

Which by the way started most of the problems in the first place.

If I remember correctly, the translation is "even a rat will fight if cornered", though today we might mutter something about "asymmetric warfare" in response to "full spectrum dominance".

Sun Zi wrote in about 500BC. So it's not like you were warned yesterday. You've had 2500 years of warning.

Expect kamikaze attacks. They happen. Especially from people who feel they have nothing to lose, and feel under attack from very, very strong opponents.

That's federalism, not nationalism.

Nationalism is "Deutschland Uber Alles"