Tim Blair

Tough call to disentangle the moralities of the two.

I suppose you could say the kamikazes were acting within some kind of military structure and that their targets were generally - if not exclusively - military.

I can understand how Amaki would have been offended, if for no other reason than that the Sheik proved himself an obstinate, ignorant ass.

"Nasrallah said the Shiites all commend the Japanese samurai spirit."

I hope Nasrallah commends the way that the Japanese samurai spirit was eradicated too. I certainly do.

I'm with Clem; the kamikazi thing really worked out well for Japan in World War II, didn't it?

Note the sheik does not advocate suicide bombings, by, say, sheiks. He much prefers the "little people" to carry out such missions.

Letterman must have been a bit uncomfortable with Kerry's tongue action. I didn't want to dwell too much while watching but couldn't help it; it was constant. Let's see if K's habit becomes as well known as W's smirk.

So according to the 10,000 Bin Ladens argument, we should be pestered to this day by Kamikazis -- since fighting back against the people who sent them only boosted recruiting. Cycle of violence and all that, you understand . . .

Kerry's tongue comments meant for previous story.

Does the phrase "kamikaze survivors" sound weird to you, too?

Gary: Does defeat the purpose, doesn't it?

Amaki-san nailied it right on the head too: "But the Arab world is looking for support wherever they can get it, so they seek out every excuse to legitimize their actions."

I hope he did point out Hiroshima and Nagasaki, maybe wake the splodydopes up a little.

C.L.: Absolutely, and that's the important difference.

Suicidally attacking military targets (I know of no kamikaze attacks on non-military targets; by the period of the war they started to be used, there wasn't really any non-military Allied target for them to attack, and warships were a far higher priority target) is a world different from attacking random civilians (or specifically children, for that matter).

The former is a legitimate, if desperate, military endeavour. The latter is terrorism and, in its way, cowardice. (Some physical courage is, of course, required to blow oneself up, but to risk being killed before then, by attacking an armed enemy, rather than civilians, is much moreso. Civilians don't generally fight back.)

Kamikaze and survivor do not go together.

If a suicide attacker wants to attack purely military targets - good luck to them.

Suicide terrorists who deliberately target civilians and those who support them are beneath contempt and deserve no protection of any sort.

kamikaze survivors, now there's not a significant demographic.

Hmmm, now we're touching on a subject that has intrigued me a little lately. At what stage in the war on terror should we consider the Hiroshimo solution? And how should it be employed?

Slatts, this is the thought that bothers me too. Eventually, someone is going to REALLY get the shits with these idiots. Remember what happened to last lot of people that thought it was alright to cut heads off. Hiroshima & Nagasaki ring any bells?
This is a bad solution for all involved but eventually they must be made to realise that we won't lose this war. Hopefully this can done without nuking them.

The Hiroshima solution won't work, for at least two reasons:

1) Japan surrendered because its government didn't want to see its people get incinerated. Islamoterrorists are undeterred by the threat of collateral damage to their fellow Muslims.

2) Our WWII enemy in the Pacific was the government of a single nation. Japanese all around the world weren't blowing up pizzarias and buses. Islamoterrorism is multinational, a motley collection of state-organized and grassroots organizations. If we nuke, say, Damascus and Riyadh, why should terrorists in Algeria or Gaza - or Paris - care?

Alan, you are quite correct. I'm not talking about a strategic strike though, I'm talking about sheer frustration or retaliation. That is my concern.

Dar-al Islam,

Islamists don't value human lives but they are mad about *land* specifically 'holy site'.

Hiroshima solution:

a list of Islamic Holy Sites, ranked in order of importance with Mecca at the top (excluding Jerusalem of course)-

they threaten to kill our people, we threaten to nuke their holy sites.

Actually in practice this would only work with Mecca, the rest are part of the Shia/Sunni divide.

So, give the residents of Mecca 24 hrs to evacuate and kiss the Khaba goodbye!

Of course even this might play into their hands by radicalising the present moderate Muslims.

So take it as a hypothetical, and one which may lead to a dangerous escalation, just what the Jihadis want!

"Some physical courage is, of course, required to blow oneself up..."

No, not if you believe that by doing so you're going to be serviced in perpetuity by 72 beautiful naked virgins in Paradise. If you actually believe stupid shit like that, then it almost seems like a good deal.

"Surviving kamikaze" were mostly those who had been trained and deployed to air bases at the end of the war, with no opportunity to actually carry out attacks.