Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yep, and when we are attacked, I can be defending my family and have my house bombed and China or insert country can say I was a terrorist hiding behind women and children.
Tell me, if our country was attacked, would you run away from your wife and children to leave them on their own?
Big problem with your thinkung. The terrorists attacked the Twin Towers first when Clinton was in office, before we had presence in Iraq.
McCain took photo ops with ISIS.
When they work for us, they are Freedom Fighters, when they work against us they are terrorists
You are stating the obvious.......unfortunately for some reason many are not able to comprehend the obvious.....I think it's myopia brought on by their politics.
No, we only "helped" rebels later. The instability was caused by Assad's brutal rule over his own people and them responding. We shouldn't have gotten involved by helping rebels, but we didn't cause that instability. Believe it or not, the USA isn't always to blame for everything.
LOL, dropping bombs on civilians isn't brutal? If one was to make something like this up it wouldn't be believable.
Saudi Arabia, no stranger to radicals in their own countries, warned the western nations about starting wars in the Middle East back in 1993.
They said it would unleash the gates of hell.
Take a look at it now. A giant colossal mess.
There seems to be a big logical disconnect among some people. When our humans get bombed and attacked, people are ready to go to war at a moments notice, but when other humans get bombed and attacked elsewhere, they are supposed to throw their survival instincts and killed loved ones out the door of their mind.
Despite what many want to think people really are not any different anywhere.
Big problem with your thinkung. The terrorists attacked the Twin Towers first when Clinton was in office, before we had presence in Iraq.
That was in response to another poster claiming that when we bomb them in their houses, they are hiding behind women and children rather than defending their families.
911 and its causes did not start on that day. It goes back much further with propping up dictators, using Islamic Terrorists In Afghanistan against Russia as Freedom Fighters, arming Saddam to war with Iran and on and on and on.
Look, at this stage in the game, who started what and why is irrelevant, like a parent trying to break apart ot fighting siblings. It takes two to tango and tango this country has been.
We need to mind our own dam business and let other countries sort out their own problems.
Bombing them will bring about the same response when they bomb us. It is not rocket science.
(I wonder if human will ever be as smart as the WOPR.)
"Anyone for a nice game of chess?"
P.S. I don't know about the majority of people posting here, but the idea of being "more tolerant" to the possibility of children being horribly maimed, burned and/or killed turns my stomach. Actually, the idea of any "innocents" being maimed, burned, etc. is horrible, but the idea of this happening to small children is particularly horrifying to me. Nope, I would definitely not vote for Cruz!
The terrorists bear 100% of the responsibility for casualties associated with their activities.
The only problem with that is that those whose family and friends die in such actions, rarely draw such a distinction. One would think that one would have learned that lesson back in 2003.
We do not deliberately target non-combatants and they do.
I'd rather they or us not attack anyone at all, but lets go along with your thought process.
We have precision guided bombs and smart bombs, they do not.
If we did not, we would be carpet bombing them like we did in WW2 or Vietnam.
When innocent people die, amidst terrorists we call it collateral damage when we know full well innocents will die.
That is not collateral damage when we know innocent people will die
Quote:
Collateral damage is a general term for unintentional deaths, injuries, or other damage inflicted incidentally on an intended target.
When we bombed the hospital in Afghanistan, there were wounded Taliban and also innocent doctors.
When they bombed the hospital, it was not, "we will take out the wounded Taliban and hope to not kill civilians"
It was, "When we bomb the hospital, wounded Taliban and innocent people will die"
Collateral Damage implies unintended innocent deaths.
Bombing a hospital with innocent people in it will intentionally kill them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
