"You may hide in your caves,
they'll be only your graves,
but you can't get away from the guns!"

Corsair posted an article with a description that sounds like this scene. I sent him a link to this video, and he posted it on his site after the article.

I hope they show this kind of stuff in Islamic countries. Just to let those so inclined know that we can do terror better than they can even dream of.

First note that THIS use of Puff the Magic Dragon wasn't terrorism -- since presumably the targets weren't civilians. Not targeting the mosque was nice too.

That said, powerful countries have always been better at terrorism. Terrorism works best as a tool of the stong, not of the weak. I suspect our enemies are well aware of the firebombing of Tokyo and Dresden, and understand fully what could happen to them and their families.

Use of terrorism by the strong is inherently moral, of course, since "the morality of the powerless is irrelevant" and "history is written by the victors." In the final analysis, only strength matters.

This means that any U.S. military action is "good", since ultimately only the morality of the U.S. leadership has any meaningful effect on the outcome. As the U.S. military becomes ever more dominant, the world will understand the true consequences of this better.

Mr Madison.

Under your doctrine, the military advantage enjoyed by the Wehrmacht in 1938-41 made Germany morally superior to their neighbours, the Japanese Imperial Army in China a model of enlightenment, and the Taliban in Afghanistan a Utopian society.

Contrarily, the Jews under Hilter, being powerless, were by your definition immoral, as were the Chinese peasants of Nanking, and the current girls and women of Kabul.

You imply that the Allied effort to save Europe from the Nazi's was Terrorism, basing your claim solely on the rationale that they gained increasing military advantage after 1942.

Relative military strength is completly unrelated to morality. Just as a bullet doesn't care if you are "good" or "bad", the outcome of war is not determined by the morality of its participants.

awesome pix! (and I mean that in purest sense of the adjective). It is better for the terrorists to see this from the ground, or yet for the mangled survivors to tell the tale of hellish fire from nowhere. A dose of the fear of god, in the ancient sense.
Might does not make right, but it is very effective to enforce and perpetuate right.

Note that while the nickname Puff the Magic Dragon is sometimes misapplied to the AC-130 (Spectre), it belongs to the earlier AC-47.

I wonder how many Iraqi, Iranian or North Korean citizens are allowed to have access to this? Not the best inducement for joining their respective militaries.
T. J., you miss a point. While this must have been terrifying for the combatants on the ground, it was not terrorism. Targeting the mosque and a village of innocent civilians while avoiding combat with the "military" assets would make it terrorism.

Wow

Whatsoever you sow so shall you reap, never take the God given protection this country receives as for granted.

For in this day that the power we are given is used for evil perpose in that day we shall lose our protection. For who may stand against God.

>>Under your doctrine, the military advantage enjoyed by the Wehrmacht in 1938-41 made Germany morally superior to their neighbours, the Japanese Imperial Army in China a model of enlightenment, and the Taliban in Afghanistan a Utopian society.

Certainly, until they were proven to be "wrong" (by overwhelming military firepower).

>>Contrarily, the Jews under Hilter, being powerless, were by your definition immoral, as were the Chinese peasants of Nanking, and the current girls and women of Kabul.

Yes. They either didn't have enough power, or didn't kowtow sufficiently to those who did. For this capital crime, they were punished severely.

>>You imply that the Allied effort to save Europe from the Nazi's was Terrorism, basing your claim solely on the rationale that they gained increasing military advantage after 1942.

Not quite. Their use of strategic bombing -- which often intentionally targeted civilians, especially in the case of the British -- was terrorism. Their handing the Axis armies their ass on the battlefield wasn't terrorism. Both actions were highly moral, since they were sanctioned by those with the most power. Note that nobody on the Allied side was tried at Nurenburg.

>>Relative military strength is completly unrelated to morality. Just as a bullet doesn't care if you are "good" or "bad", the outcome of war is not determined by the morality of its participants.

But the moral principles of the victor are the ones which will be imposed on all after the war ends. Since there doesn't seem to be evidence of any "higher morality," these morals will be the ones that matter.

Note that the existence of a God doesn't actually change my assessment much. In this case, what is moral is determined by an all-POWERFUL being and imposed on the rest of us, presumably through some future rewards and punishments.

"what comes around, goes around"!
Would love to see much more of this.

Joe Kool

good stuff

Howard Stern called this footage "the feelgood video of the year" on his show today. After the display of cowardice by the terrorists on September 11th I agree.

Actually, this is a great incentive for Americans such as myself to go join the military of OTHER countries to help stop the American terrorism as shown above.

Those exploding shells sure look cool from the air!!! Let's take a look at what they do on the ground:

http://rawa.fancymarketing.net/s-photos.htm

Wait a minute... in 2001 RAWA was crying for help. The oppression of women, blah, blah, etc....Now they are crying about the U.S. killing people. Hey, Honey: You prefer the old(Taliban) way?

Cant have it both ways.