If this is it, if this is the "questions", your's was a semi-rational post. To respond.

There is always collateral damage. And not so collateral damage.

A friend of mine, a retired Army sergeant, was on the Yalu River in North Korea when the Communist Chinese came across. He said there were so many of them there wasn't enough ammunition to shoot them all. They had appropriate uniforms, white, and the UN forces were not very well equipped.

He told me that in the ensuing rout, not retreat, but UN forces running headlong to the rear and being chased down, there was so much intermingling of forces that from time to time they'd capture 5, 10, or 15 Allies, and the UN would capture 5, 10, or 15 of them. What to do?

Each side did what they could. And they couldn't take care of them, couldn't take them to the rear. It was too much of a mess.

So, they took 'em behind a tree. Out of sight.

That's a war crime, and understandable, excusable with some caveats.

Lining up people in a ditch in Vietnam is also understandable, not excusable.

And calling in Spectres to shoot up 5 villages over a period of 4 hours when there are no combatants is not excusable. Not "collateral" damage, just a slaughter.

And it pisses me off to see our armed forces, who have done such a great job of protecting our country until the Supreme Court (not the electorate) started giving it away, used in such a manner.

Do you have any idea what it does to anyone but a sociopath to be used like that? To slaughter?

Think about it.

Me say something hateful? If I thought it would expose or combat the ignorance which leads to slaughters, I'll say a lot hateful.

If that's what it takes to express my feelings toward slaughters of innocent people, I'll say some more that's hateful.

Arf