- Trying to kill innocent civilians
versus
- Trying not to kill innocent civilians
I didn't say that.
What you never seem to see is there is a difference between not trying to kill innocent civilians and accepting the killing of innocent civilans as "collateral damage".
Terror suspect in a market place.
Kill him with a sniper is not trying to kill innocents.
Kill him with an air to surface missile is accepting the killing of innocents.
Terror suspect in a safe house.
Kill him with local fire is not trying to kill innocents.
Kill him with a smart bomb from 30,000 ft (yeah, they never miss) is accepting the killing of innocents.
Do you see a difference yet or am I talking to a brick wall?
I hate it when the smart ones play thick........
Flame » in reply to re: Differences
A seven year old responds
The whole thread (92 posts)
- A question for Mark Eby: What is your definition of 'terrorist'?
- Someone who DELIBERTATELY targets non-combatants.
- That's George Bush. Read it again. (n/t)
- Your Definition Is Pretty Good
- Swinging intellectually (and wildly)
- Uh, lemme try: someone with a rag on their head? (n/t)
- My definition is a bit simpler.
- Opposed to.............?
- re: My definition is a bit simpler.
- Differences
- re: Differences
- A seven year old responds
- You're right, as far as it goes.
- Old Trick
- Another Old Trick
- Same Old Anti-war Rubbish
- re: Another Old Trick
- Maybe the point is...
- Same Old Dem Lies And Stupid Posturing
- And what would the same war have cost ten years from now?
- I didn't say there was a better way.
- Maybe the point is...
- Another Old Trick
- re: You're right, as far as it goes. (n/t)
- good bump (n/t)
- Old Trick
- You're right, as far as it goes.
- A seven year old responds
- re: Differences
