This reminds me a bit of some of the American Revolution's more guerrilla tactics- shooting the enemy's generals directly, hiding behind more-or-less impenetrable trees, and the like.
It's unfortunate that now we're on the receiving end of these attacks- home soil advantage is huge- but it feels like there are better ways of dealing with IED's than what we're curgently doing.
“Bizarrely he described how he would rather work making IEDs rather than accompany his colleagues to watch the spectacle of the bullfight ‘where innocent animals were killed’.”
I agree with you in theory but let's not pretend that ieds don't have high collateral damage and that that's not painfully obvious (so there's still probably cognitive dissonance involved in saying something like that).
But there is still a big difference between also blowing up lots of innocent bystanders because $cause is deemed more important and having bloodshed done for show and paying for the privilege of cheering it on. I find it quite unsurprising if someone who does violence professionally isn't turned on by violence for entertainment.
the ferocity of human battles before modern weapons are explicitly re-enacted with a fullness of pain, rage and despair. Solution "no one should do any violence" and "all animals become peaceful" has yet to emerge signed -psuedo-Hemmingway
This reminds me a bit of some of the American Revolution's more guerrilla tactics- shooting the enemy's generals directly, hiding behind more-or-less impenetrable trees, and the like.
It's unfortunate that now we're on the receiving end of these attacks- home soil advantage is huge- but it feels like there are better ways of dealing with IED's than what we're curgently doing.
That was a really interesting read.