I'm not saying normal (ie, Western) people don't resort to violence in extreme (or even not very extreme) circumstances. Of course they do; that's not the point. The point is, do you think modern European or American people would become suicide bombers if put into a situation like that of Iraq or Palestine (or anywhere else with suicide bombers)? Do you think the Iraqis, Palestinians, or people wherever disposed to suicide bombing, would stop being disposed to it if they were put into a situation like, I don't know, modern Chelsea? Maybe you mean if our cities were invaded, our worship commandeered (this incidentally isn't true), etc etc etc, we'd become something like the Iraqi insurgents - not suicide bombers. This is probably the case. But personally, I don't think Americans could ever become suicide bombers under any circumstances.

What notion, exactly, do you have about the word 'hypothetical'?

Stupid is an adjective. Next question: If your car, assuming you drive one, started making some fucked up grinding sound when you put it in gear, and you took it to an auto mechanic, and he said "I think your transmission's going out", would you say "Your unsupported, the problem's with the dome light" and trump in his face?

You've really gone too far this time. What do you mean by "unsupported words"? Do you mean they're not supportable as words? Of course they are. I get them from thesaurus.com, same as you. And nothing on the internet is unsupportable. Do you mean the statement they comprise is unsupportable? Whatever! It's not a statement, you retard, it's a fucking question. Will you bother to answer it if I ask more concisely? Fine, and this is yet another measure of my love for you: If you learned that we weren't unreasonably making fun of you, but were instead all reasonably and on our own initiatives making fun of you for being the silliest person ever, wouldn't you just die?

Why don't you answer my question?

Have they indeed? Well you're sittingonthefencebritches have become devastatingly snagged... on the fence, of all places! I take it your above holding opinions on important political matters, what?

You may not be going blind, but your wafflobritches have inflated to appalling levels.

Am I going blind or something? You said this poeme was "A commentary on American policy in Iraq, and a good one." I don't think it's a good commentary on American policy in Eye-rak, for all the reasons mentioned in my thought for the day. That's why I asked Caducus if he had intended it as such. He said he hadn't mentioned any particular conflict, probably because he wanted to distance his poeme from parps that could ensue from sitting anywhere other than on the fence. He also had the common decency to comdemn suicide bombing, at least in cases where it is a product of religious zeal. The trouble is there doesn't seem to be any other kind of suicide bombing. Even kamikaze bombers were motivated by a form of imperial zeal; their reward may not have been eternal paradise, but as far as they were concerned eternal honour was pretty much the same thing. In fact, if you look carefully enough, you'll probably find that selfless individuals tend to have the courtesy not to explode themselves in crowded areas. In conclusion, the only documented case of a truly selfless suicidal attack occurs in Star Trek Generations, where Captain Kirk manages to stop Soran, but at the expense of being crushed by a bridge :(