This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by eric3579.

*dupeof=https://videosift.com/video/Water-Bomber-Cools-Off-Traffic-Accident

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by oritteropo. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

Here's a Canadian example:

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/aly-hindy-salaheddin-islamic-centre

A mosque who's former founder has gone off to lead a team of Al Qaeda linked suicide bombers in Iraq. The mosque Ohmar Khadr's father brought their family to before relocating them to fight for Bin Laden in Pakistan. The mosque attended by the leaders of the largest terrorist ring Canada has broken up thus far. Other members have gone off to join terrorists in Somalia and Egypt.

The question of should we be setting up some manner of legal accountability for an organization that is clearly idealogically supporting these things isn't a clear and obvious, nope, nothing can be done. At least not any more than nope, nothing can be done is clearly the answer to the Vegas shootings.

Those are Canadair CL-415 water bombers.....

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=199266

A CL-415 amphibious aircraft sustained damage during a water takeoff.
Two CL-415 were lifting off the surface of a lake when one of the aircraft contacted a mast of a barge with the left hand wing, according to a video posted on YouTube.
The aircraft reportedly returned to land.

For the lieutenant colonel Bernier from the Office Manager communication of the direction of the Sécurité Civile : " The wing of the Fire-fighting plane is damaged, it will be unavailable for several weeks, there were projections on two barges, fortunately without making of wounded person.
They are experimented and confirmed pilots who knew well the stretch of water. They managed to fly up to the base of Nîmes. The pilot and the co-pilot are shocked, they were suspended as a protective measure and are going to be examined by a specialized doctor who has to make sure that they are in capacity to re-fly. "

Stripping context is a stupid semantics game and your better than that. If I say "declaring it's ok to kill children" is an abhorrent thing to say and I condemn it unequivocally, you aren't being honest if you observe I uttered the words "...it's ok to kill children...".

I stated the context being an act of war. If you are at war, and the enemy has managed to dig up a battle group with dual American citizenship, does every bomber sortie over them have to hold back until police can come in and arrest the group so they can stand trial first?

Your just being deliberately obtuse. Simply state you disagree on it qualifying as war like situation, then you and I otherwise agree on the whole thing.

I'm wondering if that noise is a design feature. I would assume that the ideal would be silent, if for no other reason it implies greater efficiency. Since they only have the one electric prop, I can't see why they would have to make that noise.

I think the props are either intentionally designed to make that whine or there is another bit on there making noise like the siren on a Ju-87 dive bomber. If so, that would imply that they are intended from the outset to be used as terror weapons.

In this case I don't think I have an issue with that. If you have a bunch of hostile folks holed up somewhere, and you can put the fear in them with these and thus make them surrender, that's fine. I just don't like to imagine the future when they have hours or days of endurance and they're used on civilian population centers, and that's surely the long term goal for little drone swarms like these.

@bobknight33
why is @newtboy a dumb fuck?

for pointing out that historically suicide bombers have not been exclusively muslim.newt is not disagreeing that radical islamic suicide bombers exist,he is simply pointing out that the practice of bombing in the name of religion is not an exclusively muslim practice when viewed through the lens of history.

the problem is NOT exclusively the religion of islam,the problem is fundamentalist thinking.so while at this point in history it is islam that is the theology that is twisted for a sinister and destructive purpose,the same justifications can be found in ALL religions,predominantly from the abrahmic:judaism,muslim and christianity.

this is not a simple issue,there are many factors to be considered on why people will strap a bomb to their chests and walk into a crowded cafe and blow themselves up.

factors such as:education,employment,community,family structures and most of all...hope.we need hope.all of us need hope but when conditions for normal people are so oppressive and hopeless,people will seek to find hope anywhere,which can be in the form of religion.

look,
words are inert,they are meaningless until someone reads those words..and then interprets them.

this is particularly true when addressing religion.
if you are a violent person,then your religion will be violent.
if you are peaceful and loving,then your religion will be peaceful.

no matter which sacred text you adhere to,be it the quran,the bible or the torah.you will find justification for any and all acts you choose to engage in,be it violent or peaceful.

and THAT is what sargon is addressing!
sargon is dissecting the apologetics of those who are just not getting the plot.radical islam is a problem,a big problem,and attempting to dismiss the underlying factors in order to make a more "palatable" explanation is wading into dangerous waters.

so we can understand the politics and motivation of a young man from palestine who straps explosives to his chest and blows himself up taking innocent civilians with him.we can look at the events that led up to that grievous choice.we know,because there is historical record,how badly the palestinian people are being treated,and have been for decades.the young man was stripped of hope,and the only solace he found was in the quran and so began his radicalization.

it is the politics that always,and i mean ALWAYS,sets the stage but it is the religion that lays out the justification.

which is what newt was basically talking about.
we can use the exact same calculus for fundamentalist christians,or zionist jews.

think about it,how many radicalized muslims live in america?
how many?
deerborn michigan has the largest muslim community in america.now go look at how many suicide bombers are born from that region.
notice anything?

politics is the fuel,religion is the match.

some here may take issue with sargon's take on this situation,but he is making valid points in regards to how some people (mainly on the left) engage in apologetics,while ignoring the larger implications.

if we,as a species,wish to curb the tide of religious fundamentalism and the radicalization of whole communities.then we need to address the politics first and foremost.otherwise this "war on terror" will become never-ending.because the "war on terror' is actually on "war on ideas",really bad ideas,predicated on even worse politics.

today it is islam.
tomorrow it may be christianity,and there is a whole army of fundamentalist and dominionist christians just waiting to be called for their "holy war".

or should i just call it "christian jihad".

It seems logically funny -- Harry Potter is a wizard who sympathizes with Muggles and secretly positioned himself to be a suicide bomber.

Those who support magic are liberals and those Muggles who are anti-magic are right-wing. Harry Potter is portrayed as a right-wing extremist, which is a person who would bomb a magic school. Left-wing extremists, those who support the reverse extreme, would bomb a Muggle school. (Like Magneto's stance against non-mutants.)

Securing a suicide bomber, Iraq has been added as a related post - related requested by oritteropo on that post.

Captured Daesh suicide bomber: 'I'm so sorry' has been added as a related post - related requested by oritteropo.

Check out this *related video for an explanation of how they work.

Bomb material is just as freely if not more freely available than guns.

Remember Oklahoma bomber? Or how about all those suicide bombers? they are like Dixie cups, plentiful and single use only.

It is easier to make a bomb than buy a gun.

Wide gun availability makes terror attacks more likely and more dangerous. We know that gun availability and murder rates by country are practically a linear correlation with the US at the far tail end of developed countries. The same likely holds for terror attacks.

He might have been dissuaded if he had to build a bomb or messed it up like the Times Square bomber. Meanwhile the idea that somebody armed in a crowded nightclub might have been able to stop him shooting into the crowd is ludicrous.

The US has the widest gun availability of any country. Why isn't it the safest?

I quite enjoyed the talk, with the minor quibble that his example about WWII bombers was really referencing the work of Abraham Wald (who was US based by then) and the study was by the US Center for Naval Analyses rather than being British.