"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
Mike Marron write:

By definition, a terrorist is a coward.

Someone who is willing to die to achieve their goal may justly be called
many unpleasant names, but 'coward' doesn't really fit.

In and of itself, "willingness" ain't enough. It is the *manner* in
which terrorists are willing to die that makes them cowards.

Unfortunately, we're stuck with dealing with these people as they are,
not as we wish they we they may be homicidal, reckless of life and
murderous; but they are also willing, nay eager, to die to achieve their
goals.

See above. As I've quoted before, "A coward is incapable
of exhibiting love; it is the prerogative of the brave." [Ghandi]
Also Hemingway's Old Man & The Sea" and "Death In The Afternoon"
et. al. reminds us of the need to kill well...

I'm deeply unconvinced that a smear of lard will deter them where a
determined security effort (with death in failure the result of
detection) has already tried and failed.

Truth be known, I too am unconvinced that lard would work but as the
rabbi alluded, it's one of those "whaddya' got to lose" scenarios.