28 Jul 06
What exactly are you implying? Are you trying to claim that an attack by 19 terrorists against a target with nothing but 3000+ civilians in it and meant only to kill non-combatant men, women, and children is comparable to American military operations against an armed force of douchebags?
28 Jul 06
Originally posted by General PutzerWhen does "collateral damage" become unacceptable ?
What exactly are you implying? Are you trying to claim that an attack by 19 terrorists against a target with nothing but 3000+ civilians in it and meant only to kill non-combatant men, women, and children is comparable to American military operations against an armed force of douchebags?
28 Jul 06
Originally posted by General PutzerIntentionally killing innocents is a main strategy of any war. Anyway, they keep calling it "war", not terrorism.
Collateral damage is horrible, to be sure, but intentionally killing innocents by the thousands is something else.
Or can't you see the differance?
28 Jul 06
Originally posted by General PutzerTens of thousands of people have died in Iraq. America did not need to invade it.
Collateral damage is horrible, to be sure, but intentionally killing innocents by the thousands is something else.
Or can't you see the differance?
Some may regard acceptable collateral damage to be relative to the means available ?
In America's case, it has financial power, diplomatic power, media power, military power and a nuclear arsenal (which it used to kill 70000 people in Hiroshima and the same in Nagasaki).
In the case of "terrorists", they have little power. They may regard 9/11 as acceptable.
America needs to stop being two faced.