Don't get me wrong I would not call the 5pm news a good source either. I tend to go several places
BBC NPR CNN / FOX Liberal or Conservative Radio (depending on the time) News Web Sites
--
I suspect that Pew study is more a result of correlation than causation most avid viewsr of the Daily Show are also pretty deep into the 'interwebs' and probably get allot of news there. The study itself was also pretty flawed, too few questions (20)..
I think the shows are very thought provoking, they are very funny but they are not news and they are nowhere near unbiased (which is ok as they are a comedy show). People up to and including political science professors at my alma matter (wish I could find it on line, Ive only seen the editorial in the alumni rag I get via snail mail) have praised the show as real news and are not bothered by the fact that its becoming a *primary* news source for some young people.
"but arguably os/x's driver model is a bit more solid than windows"
So is that of windows and BSD but the means one of two things:
1) Stability issues 'the drivers I got from ACME for my video card really affect the computers performance' 2) support issues 'whadda ya mean my acme video card does not have drivers on the OSX cd?
yea Ill go load a base bsd and see if the integration is anywhere *near* what OSX provides...
Seriously you, I and many others *can* make BDS and Linux look and feel like OSX but apple does it better and out of the box, there is more to OSX than just its BSD underpinnings
"Read a little about the pain of killing at a distance and the toll it takes on the UAV pilots... and then make the effort to write a cogent sentence about the subject"
Where *exactly* did I say it did not take a toll? hmmm? These men are are vulnerable to the psychological damages of war as an infantry man and I have *never* insinuated otherwise. You're so eager to pick a fight that you don't even know the positions of the person you decide to fight with! pathetic..
"This topic is about life and death and the effect that distance killing has upon our fellow humans."
Killing is killing, its usually an ugly affair.. maybe you should focus on it rather than pick meaningless fights and play grammar cop eh?
Im having trouble staying on subject? you've basically put on your Grammar Gestapo outfit in order to not tear down an argument but attack the intelligence of the person making it... pot, meet kettle..
Yup I am a newb and can still smell a pathtic grammar nazi a mile away..
Or the Ethiopian Marathon champ who dropped out because he said the air quality was too poor, why in the world Beijing was Chosen over Toronto (other than $) escapes me.
Here we have a nation that limits every possible freedom, air quality the equal of any bus stop in the world, and unmitigated corruption in their national sports programs (see the 15yo girls with 16yo passports).. They are chosen over Canada (Toronto) which way more embodies the Olympic spirit! well the ideal one..
lol, only the truly insecure go after things like apostrophes on/. then again given how many here seem to see you for the PITA troll you are I guess I can understand your need to tear down grammar rather than arguments...
"time tables and objectives? yes, as i said before, if the objective was to destroy american image, it was completed in record time!"
Bad PR does not equal bad action, France, the UK, and all nato members signed off on and set forces to Afghanistan
"oh wait...the objective was to capture ob laden? ooops..."
As I have said, taking out eye off the ball was a mistake, do you see that I am not taking the extreme position, you are..
"oh what did you say? the objective was to liberate the afghan people? errrr isnt that exactly what the objective was during the 1970s, 80s till 91 as well??"
The objective was to free Afghanistan from the soviets in the 70's a bonus was that in order to avoid an all out war with them we could only *prolong a war' and bleed the Soviets like they did to us in Vietnam. The goal of this mission was to get after AQ, get OBL and take out the taliban who were harboring them... 2/3 is not perfect but its pretty good given we were told by the left AFG would bleed the US like they did the soviets.
"btw, although the operation started in the 70s, it went on during the 80s and it was completed in 1991 (december 1991, ussr was dissolved!)"
Umm no, the soviets pulled out of AFG in 1989, that was the end of our work there, now we should have hung around and helped to rebuild but we were too short sighted to do that, you know like people who want to pull out now before rebuilding is done... Ahh watching mistakes be repeated within a lifetime is fun..
"blast ob laden instead of goin on an all out war and lets stop pretending that it was just supportin the northern alliance coz that is not how you support people"
Espionage is just illegal, assassination is a *major* international no-no, but I guess you only give a crap about international law when you use it to bash a nation you hate right?
"now that was a well thought out operation where the us attained their objective and didnt even openly intervene...can you disagree?"
Umm different objectives and time tables you're either feigning ignorance, or well ummm your not faking it.. and BTW it was the 70's and 80's not the 80's and 90's...
"so tell me this...why not just 'support' the northern alliance? why make a whole bloody mess out of something that had already been done to perfection in the past by the same group?"
Time tables and objectives, and you still pretend this was the US doing in, alone... This was *NATO* in full and unilateral support...
"who cares what they were doing as long as it remained INSIDE the afghan borders"
You tell me? you're the one who said we should try to over through the regime? that seems to entail screwing around within afgan borders... does it not?
One problem, a society has to be in a place where subterfuge could really work, The US in the near term way could not have caused an uprising to topple the Taliban... oh wait, they could have just nullified the advantage they had over existing rebels and let the Northern Alliance do the fighting, seems to me thats what they did *publicly, and with the support of NATO members*
"So then what was the point of going into Afghanistan with guns blazing and all?"
To get Bin Laden which, if we had not taken our eye off the ball by focusing on Iraq, could have been done. Now if you consider helping one side of an existing civil war going in 'with guns blazing' your once gain betraying your bias.
"wouldn't it all have been cleaner (and easier) to just carry out a well thought out espionage mission?"
Right because its that easy... In a nation where you can be summarily killed for being a literate woman, or listening to the wrong music, to foster a revolution. I guarantee you *if* somehow that had been the case you would be on here right now pissing and moaning about it..
"you do realize that the war is going to accelerate the global warming issues"
Wow, right out of left field but before we move on how is this affecting the spotted owl, the spread of AID's, Darfur, or any other number of important but completely unrelated issues? quick get out your 'the US is the most evil nation in history' handbook and bring up some other red herrings, straw men, or true socttsmans' to pull this one out...
"what with all the missiles and jets and bombs, it is bound to do that, no?"
Hell all the power used to supply/. with tasty bandwidth also adds, so please do your part and go away..
*1* Point is these are non religious actors in the equation, they are not there to tell these pilots to kill em all and let God sort them out.
*2* "2) Chaplains (not, "Chaplin's") are ministers, priests, rabbis and imams. They all tell you that you are doing God's work."
My Pastor never has told me 'Im doing Gods work', never pats me on the head and tells me all my actions must be good in the eyes of God, most would not.
"they read all sorts of old crap about invisible beings and tell you all about it." You betray your bias here, its one thing to not subscribe to belief but you take all belief and say its all the same thing thus making it damn easy to equate people who do not want to impose their religion with those who would..
"You can't spell or read for content. Perhaps the problem is your IQ?"
If thats the best you got son Im not too worried about how things look. I may through out a typo here or there but at least I'm capable of original through regarding difficult issues.
In Afganistan the US did *not* play global police.. NATO and the US (Including France, Britain, and several other nations went in because the Afgans refused to turn over someone believed to be responsible for the deaths of more than 3,000 people (you know more than have died so far in all out war between Russia and Georgia!
So while you might expect a courtesy +1 insightful for calling Americans unwanted global police you better point that judgmental finger at all of NATO
Chaplin's *and* psychologist and I doubt there are too many military chaplains who would tell a pilot if hi dies while killing infidels he will go to paradise. Your moral equivelency argument is an epic fail
Im no big fan of Chomsky, not because I think the US is lily white and pure but because I don't think its as demonic as he and his followers would have one believe.
--
"you realize that the US and Israel have done some similar terrible things (i.e. blowing up a large number of civilians to take a target)."
Note the key word there "(i.e. blowing up a large number of civilians *** to take a target *** )"
Ive already said that while tragic civil lives which are taken with the aim of hitting a specific and real military target are not taken in terrorism but war. To demonstrate that idea in a real way I have mentioned *not* examples of the US killing civilians while trying to hit targets as an 'excuse' I have pointed out that some acts called terrorism (like road side bombs, like the Africa embassy bombings) are not terrorism but asymmetrical warfare.
If you remove the portion that says 'to take out a target' you have the actions in Chechnya, Bali, markets in Israel, Markets in Iraq.
Having taken history classes at the university level trust me they get taught to kids but if you ask how many people were killed in the latest market bombing in the middle east 99.9% of people would not know, if you asked how many people the US killed when it mistook a wedding for a terrorist group 99.9% of people would not know... we suffer, as a species, equal opportunity ignorance..
"Oh I see. So when Isreali soldiers kill a couple of civilians along with each "military" target, that's where the line grays out?"
Depends on if its a military target does it not? Israel is not perfect and I am sure there are examples of it but how bad could they be given the fact that Fatah is seeking asylum in Israel from Hamas? [http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/08/02/palestinian.infighting/]
"now let's see how good you are at picking a "civilian" soldier from one in uniform."
Oh I think *this* [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9400E5D9163AF932A15752C1A9669C8B63] was a pretty clear case no? but hey they were little Jews who might grow up and join the military someday so I guess they are fair game no?
"But why don't you also speak up when Palestinian/Lebanese/Iraqi women, children, and elderly are killed in the name of fighting the terrorist threat?"
I most certainly will and I have (for the most part) steered clear of Israel / Palestinians in this conversation and restricted it to Bali, Chechnya, and Afghanistan. But you show me where an Israeli soldier went after school kids (as a primary target) and Ill condemn them as much as anyone.
"So it's okay to target civilians if you can't do any better?"
Its never OK to target civilians, your primary target should always be of military importance, you do the best you can in limiting civilian causalities while taking out a military target.
"Who defines which targets are too hard to hit, which are soft enough that they're 'terrorist'?"
There is no formula but on a case by case basis its pretty easy to distinguish the two..
1) Africa Embassy Bombings: Targets - US Government office which house military and intelligence assets, yes civilians died but all things considered it was the best they could have done to just hit a military/intelligence target
2) Bali night club: Targets Tourist who have no military or intelligence value
Are you so obtuse that you cant see the difference in these two scenarios? really?
"Rubbish. Look at the nuclear bombings of Nagasaki or Hiroshima or the firebombings of Germany or the V2 attacks on London. Those were all attacks on civilians that were legitimate military strikes."
Those can be passed off as the best technology of the time, if you wanted to destroy the ship yards at Hiroshma there were few options all of them ended in massive civilian death. Were the US to do that against today it would be a terroristic action because today we can be more surgical. In the same light a suicide bomber could have easily walked into a police station, or to an embassy and hit a governmental target, instead they hit a nightclub!
I don't think the bombings of the US embassy's in Africa were terrorism, worthy of a paddling no doubt but not terrorism. I cant become morally dead enough to make the same case for teh School in Chechnya, or the nightclubs in Bali..
"The difference between 'military assets' and 'civilians' is not a solid one. It's certainly not a fixed one."
Its not formulaic but its certainly a damn solid one in many cases and a Bus full of tourist or school kids is *not* a legit military target. To try and play it off as some grey line is f'ing insanity.
"And if China invaded you'd just sit on your ass while they destroyed entire towns. Or maybe you'd pray with your family, read a few passages from the bible, and go find the softest target you could successfully destroy."
If the softest target is a military convoy, small outpost, or even a food truck shipping to a base then yes! If the softest target is a public bus with parents taking their kids to work than *NO*.
The fact is that after we wrecked Afghanistan just to bleed the Russians
Are you shitting me? the Russians invaded the place we provided them with arms and *we* wrecked the place? our only sin in Afghanistan from the 80's is walking away after the Russians went home, we should have given them a ton of money to build up their infrastructure (conditionally based on human rights of course)
"They say that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. They say it because it's true."
They say it because people are so damn afraid to say politically incorrect things and anyone in the world who hates the yanks ( no matter how justified ) must be on to something right? Its a BS statement when said as an absolute truth.
A suicide bomber who is targeting a military asset is, imho a 'freedom fighter'. A suicide bomber who targets a bus full of civilians is a terrorist. A man who kills an enemy soldier is a freedom fighter, a man who beheads a journalist because he is Jewish is a terrorist... Are you seeing the difference?
"There is nothing inherently wrong with using asymmetric warfare tactics."
When you're talking road side bombs of military convoys, sneak attacks, even bombing of business which are occupied by a huge majority of foreign combatants I could agree with stat statement. When you're talking about blowing up a tourist nightclub in Bali, hypothetically speaking of course, then we have long left the theater of asymmetrical warfare and entered into criminal terrorism.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't get me wrong I would not call the 5pm news a good source either. I tend to go several places
BBC
NPR
CNN / FOX
Liberal or Conservative Radio (depending on the time)
News Web Sites
--
I suspect that Pew study is more a result of correlation than causation most avid viewsr of the Daily Show are also pretty deep into the 'interwebs' and probably get allot of news there. The study itself was also pretty flawed, too few questions (20)..
I think the shows are very thought provoking, they are very funny but they are not news and they are nowhere near unbiased (which is ok as they are a comedy show). People up to and including political science professors at my alma matter (wish I could find it on line, Ive only seen the editorial in the alumni rag I get via snail mail) have praised the show as real news and are not bothered by the fact that its becoming a *primary* news source for some young people.
"but arguably os/x's driver model is a bit more solid than windows"
So is that of windows and BSD but the means one of two things:
1) Stability issues 'the drivers I got from ACME for my video card really affect the computers performance'
2) support issues 'whadda ya mean my acme video card does not have drivers on the OSX cd?
yea Ill go load a base bsd and see if the integration is anywhere *near* what OSX provides...
Seriously you, I and many others *can* make BDS and Linux look and feel like OSX but apple does it better and out of the box, there is more to OSX than just its BSD underpinnings
to the same place that right wing police state bureaucracy takes you..
Both know better than you and both are only acting for your own good...
"Read a little about the pain of killing at a distance and the toll it takes on the UAV pilots... and then make the effort to write a cogent sentence about the subject"
Where *exactly* did I say it did not take a toll? hmmm? These men are are vulnerable to the psychological damages of war as an infantry man and I have *never* insinuated otherwise. You're so eager to pick a fight that you don't even know the positions of the person you decide to fight with! pathetic..
"This topic is about life and death and the effect that distance killing has upon our fellow humans."
Killing is killing, its usually an ugly affair.. maybe you should focus on it rather than pick meaningless fights and play grammar cop eh?
Some can look past the use of apostrophes on /., go figure..
Im having trouble staying on subject? you've basically put on your Grammar Gestapo outfit in order to not tear down an argument but attack the intelligence of the person making it... pot, meet kettle..
Yup I am a newb and can still smell a pathtic grammar nazi a mile away..
Or the Ethiopian Marathon champ who dropped out because he said the air quality was too poor, why in the world Beijing was Chosen over Toronto (other than $) escapes me.
Here we have a nation that limits every possible freedom, air quality the equal of any bus stop in the world, and unmitigated corruption in their national sports programs (see the 15yo girls with 16yo passports).. They are chosen over Canada (Toronto) which way more embodies the Olympic spirit! well the ideal one..
lol, only the truly insecure go after things like apostrophes on /. then again given how many here seem to see you for the PITA troll you are I guess I can understand your need to tear down grammar rather than arguments...
Wow, just wow..
"time tables and objectives? yes, as i said before, if the objective was to destroy american image, it was completed in record time!"
Bad PR does not equal bad action, France, the UK, and all nato members signed off on and set forces to Afghanistan
"oh wait...the objective was to capture ob laden? ooops..."
As I have said, taking out eye off the ball was a mistake, do you see that I am not taking the extreme position, you are..
"oh what did you say? the objective was to liberate the afghan people? errrr isnt that exactly what the objective was during the 1970s, 80s till 91 as well??"
The objective was to free Afghanistan from the soviets in the 70's a bonus was that in order to avoid an all out war with them we could only *prolong a war' and bleed the Soviets like they did to us in Vietnam. The goal of this mission was to get after AQ, get OBL and take out the taliban who were harboring them... 2/3 is not perfect but its pretty good given we were told by the left AFG would bleed the US like they did the soviets.
"btw, although the operation started in the 70s, it went on during the 80s and it was completed in 1991 (december 1991, ussr was dissolved!)"
Umm no, the soviets pulled out of AFG in 1989, that was the end of our work there, now we should have hung around and helped to rebuild but we were too short sighted to do that, you know like people who want to pull out now before rebuilding is done... Ahh watching mistakes be repeated within a lifetime is fun..
"blast ob laden instead of goin on an all out war and lets stop pretending that it was just supportin the northern alliance coz that is not how you support people"
Espionage is just illegal, assassination is a *major* international no-no, but I guess you only give a crap about international law when you use it to bash a nation you hate right?
"now that was a well thought out operation where the us attained their objective and didnt even openly intervene...can you disagree?"
Umm different objectives and time tables you're either feigning ignorance, or well ummm your not faking it.. and BTW it was the 70's and 80's not the 80's and 90's...
"so tell me this...why not just 'support' the northern alliance? why make a whole bloody mess out of something that had already been done to perfection in the past by the same group?"
Time tables and objectives, and you still pretend this was the US doing in, alone... This was *NATO* in full and unilateral support...
"who cares what they were doing as long as it remained INSIDE the afghan borders"
You tell me? you're the one who said we should try to over through the regime? that seems to entail screwing around within afgan borders... does it not?
One problem, a society has to be in a place where subterfuge could really work, The US in the near term way could not have caused an uprising to topple the Taliban... oh wait, they could have just nullified the advantage they had over existing rebels and let the Northern Alliance do the fighting, seems to me thats what they did *publicly, and with the support of NATO members*
"So then what was the point of going into Afghanistan with guns blazing and all?"
To get Bin Laden which, if we had not taken our eye off the ball by focusing on Iraq, could have been done. Now if you consider helping one side of an existing civil war going in 'with guns blazing' your once gain betraying your bias.
"wouldn't it all have been cleaner (and easier) to just carry out a well thought out espionage mission?"
Right because its that easy... In a nation where you can be summarily killed for being a literate woman, or listening to the wrong music, to foster a revolution. I guarantee you *if* somehow that had been the case you would be on here right now pissing and moaning about it..
"you do realize that the war is going to accelerate the global warming issues"
Wow, right out of left field but before we move on how is this affecting the spotted owl, the spread of AID's, Darfur, or any other number of important but completely unrelated issues? quick get out your 'the US is the most evil nation in history' handbook and bring up some other red herrings, straw men, or true socttsmans' to pull this one out...
"what with all the missiles and jets and bombs, it is bound to do that, no?"
Hell all the power used to supply /. with tasty bandwidth also adds, so please do your part and go away..
Ummm skippy,
You left out the part where rebels were shelling across the border from South Ossetia into Georgia... You know the rebels backed by Russia..
*1* Point is these are non religious actors in the equation, they are not there to tell these pilots to kill em all and let God sort them out.
*2* "2) Chaplains (not, "Chaplin's") are ministers, priests, rabbis and imams. They all tell you that you are doing God's work."
My Pastor never has told me 'Im doing Gods work', never pats me on the head and tells me all my actions must be good in the eyes of God, most would not.
"they read all sorts of old crap about invisible beings and tell you all about it." You betray your bias here, its one thing to not subscribe to belief but you take all belief and say its all the same thing thus making it damn easy to equate people who do not want to impose their religion with those who would..
"You can't spell or read for content. Perhaps the problem is your IQ?"
If thats the best you got son Im not too worried about how things look. I may through out a typo here or there but at least I'm capable of original through regarding difficult issues.
Hey Kazmi,
In Afganistan the US did *not* play global police.. NATO and the US (Including France, Britain, and several other nations went in because the Afgans refused to turn over someone believed to be responsible for the deaths of more than 3,000 people (you know more than have died so far in all out war between Russia and Georgia!
So while you might expect a courtesy +1 insightful for calling Americans unwanted global police you better point that judgmental finger at all of NATO
Chaplin's *and* psychologist and I doubt there are too many military chaplains who would tell a pilot if hi dies while killing infidels he will go to paradise. Your moral equivelency argument is an epic fail
Im no big fan of Chomsky, not because I think the US is lily white and pure but because I don't think its as demonic as he and his followers would have one believe.
--
"you realize that the US and Israel have done some similar terrible things (i.e. blowing up a large number of civilians to take a target)."
Note the key word there "(i.e. blowing up a large number of civilians *** to take a target *** )"
Ive already said that while tragic civil lives which are taken with the aim of hitting a specific and real military target are not taken in terrorism but war. To demonstrate that idea in a real way I have mentioned *not* examples of the US killing civilians while trying to hit targets as an 'excuse' I have pointed out that some acts called terrorism (like road side bombs, like the Africa embassy bombings) are not terrorism but asymmetrical warfare.
If you remove the portion that says 'to take out a target' you have the actions in Chechnya, Bali, markets in Israel, Markets in Iraq.
Having taken history classes at the university level trust me they get taught to kids but if you ask how many people were killed in the latest market bombing in the middle east 99.9% of people would not know, if you asked how many people the US killed when it mistook a wedding for a terrorist group 99.9% of people would not know... we suffer, as a species, equal opportunity ignorance..
"Oh I see. So when Isreali soldiers kill a couple of civilians along with each "military" target, that's where the line grays out?"
Depends on if its a military target does it not? Israel is not perfect and I am sure there are examples of it but how bad could they be given the fact that Fatah is seeking asylum in Israel from Hamas? [http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/08/02/palestinian.infighting/]
"now let's see how good you are at picking a "civilian" soldier from one in uniform."
Oh I think *this* [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9400E5D9163AF932A15752C1A9669C8B63] was a pretty clear case no? but hey they were little Jews who might grow up and join the military someday so I guess they are fair game no?
"But why don't you also speak up when Palestinian/Lebanese/Iraqi women, children, and elderly are killed in the name of fighting the terrorist threat?"
I most certainly will and I have (for the most part) steered clear of Israel / Palestinians in this conversation and restricted it to Bali, Chechnya, and Afghanistan. But you show me where an Israeli soldier went after school kids (as a primary target) and Ill condemn them as much as anyone.
"So it's okay to target civilians if you can't do any better?"
Its never OK to target civilians, your primary target should always be of military importance, you do the best you can in limiting civilian causalities while taking out a military target.
"Who defines which targets are too hard to hit, which are soft enough that they're 'terrorist'?"
There is no formula but on a case by case basis its pretty easy to distinguish the two..
1) Africa Embassy Bombings: Targets - US Government office which house military and intelligence assets, yes civilians died but all things considered it was the best they could have done to just hit a military/intelligence target
2) Bali night club: Targets Tourist who have no military or intelligence value
Are you so obtuse that you cant see the difference in these two scenarios? really?
Even then its occasionally called for health and safety standards, ip infringement, ...
But being pissed because you can put FF on your new iPhone is not something that needs government intervention.
"Rubbish. Look at the nuclear bombings of Nagasaki or Hiroshima or the firebombings of Germany or the V2 attacks on London. Those were all attacks on civilians that were legitimate military strikes."
Those can be passed off as the best technology of the time, if you wanted to destroy the ship yards at Hiroshma there were few options all of them ended in massive civilian death. Were the US to do that against today it would be a terroristic action because today we can be more surgical. In the same light a suicide bomber could have easily walked into a police station, or to an embassy and hit a governmental target, instead they hit a nightclub!
I don't think the bombings of the US embassy's in Africa were terrorism, worthy of a paddling no doubt but not terrorism. I cant become morally dead enough to make the same case for teh School in Chechnya, or the nightclubs in Bali..
"The difference between 'military assets' and 'civilians' is not a solid one. It's certainly not a fixed one."
Its not formulaic but its certainly a damn solid one in many cases and a Bus full of tourist or school kids is *not* a legit military target. To try and play it off as some grey line is f'ing insanity.
"And if China invaded you'd just sit on your ass while they destroyed entire towns. Or maybe you'd pray with your family, read a few passages from the bible, and go find the softest target you could successfully destroy."
If the softest target is a military convoy, small outpost, or even a food truck shipping to a base then yes! If the softest target is a public bus with parents taking their kids to work than *NO*.
The fact is that after we wrecked Afghanistan just to bleed the Russians
Are you shitting me? the Russians invaded the place we provided them with arms and *we* wrecked the place? our only sin in Afghanistan from the 80's is walking away after the Russians went home, we should have given them a ton of money to build up their infrastructure (conditionally based on human rights of course)
"They say that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. They say it because it's true."
They say it because people are so damn afraid to say politically incorrect things and anyone in the world who hates the yanks ( no matter how justified ) must be on to something right? Its a BS statement when said as an absolute truth.
A suicide bomber who is targeting a military asset is, imho a 'freedom fighter'. A suicide bomber who targets a bus full of civilians is a terrorist. A man who kills an enemy soldier is a freedom fighter, a man who beheads a journalist because he is Jewish is a terrorist... Are you seeing the difference?
"There is nothing inherently wrong with using asymmetric warfare tactics."
When you're talking road side bombs of military convoys, sneak attacks, even bombing of business which are occupied by a huge majority of foreign combatants I could agree with stat statement. When you're talking about blowing up a tourist nightclub in Bali, hypothetically speaking of course, then we have long left the theater of asymmetrical warfare and entered into criminal terrorism.