re: So you're advocating aiming the violence directly at civilians?

Current Events » in reply to So you're advocating aiming the violence directly at civilians?

Publius — 4/9/2004 1:22:58 PM (archived)

on these boards you MUST make the distinction between "aiming violence directly at civilians," and collateral damage.

Political correctness is an issue here.

Publius

The whole thread (14 posts)

Riding the tiger. - Bowser - 4/8/2004 12:15:17 PM
- Riding the tiger, same as riding the jaguar? - Publius - 4/10/2004 5:25:53 PM
- It's B-52 time. (n/t) - David F Mayer - 4/8/2004 2:07:44 PM
  - So you're advocating aiming the violence directly at civilians? - Bowser - 4/8/2004 3:18:57 PM
    - re: So you're advocating aiming the violence directly at civilians? - Publius - 4/9/2004 1:22:58 PM
      - Political Correctness - Lindy - 4/9/2004 5:22:29 PM
    - "How would you target a B-52?" WIth GPS guided bombs. - David F Mayer - 4/8/2004 6:27:43 PM
    - re: So you're advocating aiming the violence directly at civilians? - SDG - 4/8/2004 6:26:58 PM
      - The accuracy of those weapons is questionable at best. - Bowser - 4/8/2004 6:35:48 PM
        
        re: The accuracy of those weapons is questionable at best. - Pete S. - 4/11/2004 5:49:29 AM
        
        No, we're not using B-52s. Americans are dying to keep Iraqi civilians alive. (n/t) - Tom Brosz - 4/8/2004 8:42:14 PM
        
        "Americans are dying to keep Iraqi civilians alive." True, but is it prudent? (n/t) - David F Mayer - 4/8/2004 9:24:25 PM
        
        Americans are OVER THERE. Killing them by the thousand. - Bowser - 4/9/2004 7:29:17 PM
- Feeding the Tiger - Jack Herer - 4/8/2004 1:20:33 PM

Recent posts

On this day in Current Events

The whole thread (14 posts)