True, we usually do what we can do minimize civilian casualties while terrorists tend to do their best to maximize them.
An interesting situation although is in Israel/Lebanon. Hamas and Hezbollah do not just kill people. They kill Israelies, and try to avoid damage to Palestinians. But they also provide services like ambulances, food, and education.
And NCSC, we did a lot more city bombing in WWII (everyone did) besides the two big bombs. And those bombs probably saved both civilian and military lives on both sides of the war.
And NCSC, we did a lot more city bombing in WWII (everyone did) besides the two big bombs. And those bombs probably saved both civilian and military lives on both sides of the war.
True, but Marine mis-stated as fact we only “accidentally” kill civilians, which flat out is not true.
He uses deliberate civilian deaths to distinguish the US from terrorists, yet we have deliberately killed more civilians than the terrorists ever did.
And even just looking in Iraq… Shock and Awe… how many civies did we kill that night? Bush a few weeks ago admitted to 35,000 Iraqi’s dead. VERY few of those were during the “war” and the terrorists certainly have not killed that many. So, the rest of them are OURS… we did it, dropping bombs, firing machine guns and artillery. We knew civies were there, we fired anyway.
And um… just this thought also…
The terrorists only recently started heavy attacks on civies. For a year, they were aimed at our troops and civilian casualties were an “accident”.
So again, how are the terrorists different from us in THAT regard?
No, I am not saying that WE are terrorists. I am still trying to get Marine to actually DEFINE terrorist, because the methods he is using to identify them so far cut BOTH ways.
The actions by the terrorists indicate their narrow view of civilians:
Someone I can trust to actively support “my” side, but without the use of weapons.
I meant present times of course. Back in ww2 we didnt have to worry about the commie media freaking out if we killed some enemy civilians.
Linkon, i think M36 proves that his view is as narrow.
@M36:
I meant present times of course. Back in ww2 we didnt have to worry about the commie media freaking out if we killed some enemy civilians.
And of all the civilians we have killed in Iraq? You negelected to mention those…
Or is 3 years ago ancient history too?
how do you define terrorist nc?
As a sociopath with no regard for life with a minority agenda who trades their life to kill others in order to scare the majority into giving others who share the sociopath’s view a victory of policy/leadership.
@ncscswitch:
As a sociopath with no regard for life with a minority agenda who trades their life to kill others in order to scare the majority into giving others who share the sociopath’s view a victory of policy/leadership.
So by your definition, the Nazis were not terrorists because they were the majority in Germany from 1933 to 1945? Also they generally did not like to trade their life. Perhaps the Nazis belong in a different catagory … what would you call them then?
There are many different varieties of evil, I suppose.
The Nazis certainly were not Terrororist. They may be called many things, but terrorist is NOT applicable to Nazis.
The Nazis were Nationalists. They had a fundamental view of Germany being the best nation in Europe, and they fed this ideal with the bile of the Versailes treaty and the desire of the German people to not live in adject misery imposed form outside. They took over, LEGALLY, they stabilized the economy, then created such rapid and massive growth that almost every citizen benefitted. Had they not gone to war with Russia, they probably would still be in power today.
Did they have some fracked up ideas? Were they bigots and racists? Yes on both counts.
But there were not terrorists.
If we lable the Nazis as terrorists we’re using a very broad definition of the word terrorist.
The Nazis were a regime sustained through force. A police state. Very rarely, if ever, can you define a government as terrorist.
@221B:
So by your definition, the Nazis were not terrorists because they were the majority in Germany from 1933 to 1945?
I am not sure they were the majority, as …
The Nazis were a regime sustained through force. A police state.
you don’t need to have a police state if you are the majority.
Switch, you still dont get it do you???
When we kill civilians, it is an ACCIDENT
Terrorists deliberatly target civilians.
I cant make it any easier, but since when do commies care about facts? :roll:
I mainly wanted to point out that the definition of civilian is different for us than the terrorists as theirs allow them to kill anyone they want to.
These terrorists and the media supportive of them also apply a double standard to constrain the efforts of the Army and Marine units stationed there. In their view, any unarmed person injured, or killed over there on our watch is our fault. The villainous video beheadings are a recruiting tool for them, and its still our fault, even though some sword brotherhood or whatever claims responsibility. Many of the beheaded are civilians to us, but not to them.
The media over there and here need a massive shakedown about what’s going on.
Marine, that provides little comfort to a family when their kid dies because we accidentally blew their house up. If that happened to my son, as nice as I think I am :lol: I think I might want a little payback against the people that did it.
Marine, that provides little comfort to a family when their kid dies because we accidentally blew their house up. If that happened to my son, as nice as I think I am :lol: I think I might want a little payback against the people that did it.
Exactly…to a loved one, it won’t matter the motive. If it were deliberate, they may seek vengeance, but damage done is damage done. Either they’ll think you’re too stupid or careless, or a heartless bastard.
I would consider a terrorist as anyone that employs terrorism (nearly as hard to define), which is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary (1) and Merriam-Webster’s (2):
(1) The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
(2) The unlawful use or threat of violence esp. against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion; violent and intimidating gang activity
According to those definitions, you’d find Osama, Bush & co., Nazis, Stalin, etc. on the same page. I found other definitions, but they seem to be contemporary (as in terrorist: see Muslim) and conformed to stereotypes. It appears that violence is the heart of terrorism; the intent is the mind.
@M36:
Switch, you still dont get it do you???
When we kill civilians, it is an ACCIDENT
Terrorists deliberatly target civilians.I cant make it any easier, but since when do commies care about facts? :roll:
Sorry Marine, I am the OTHER end of the political spectrum from Communist, I am a Libertarian.
And Marine, you are the one who refuses to see facts… it was only recently that the “terrorists” in Iraq started to target civies, and even NOW it is rare. They target US troops (and did almost exclusively until very recently). Now they target more Iraqi authorities… especially the police.
And as far as “accidentally” killing civies…
How much of an “accident” is it when you bomb a dinner that not only MIGHT have your target, but also has innocent civilians WORKING the dinner? That happened just a couple days ago in PAKISTAN. How much of an “accident” is it to drop bombs in the middle of a city when civies die? We did that all over Iraq.
SNIPERS kill targets. BOMBS have collateral damage, no matter how “smart” they allegedly are. And KNOWING that means that killing civies with one is NOT an accident, it is EXPECTED.
@ncscswitch:
Did they have some fracked up ideas? Were they bigots and racists? Yes on both counts.
ok,
who watches Battlestar Gallactica . . . hands up!
also i am finding myself increasingly on the same page with you in this forum. Keep up the good work!
:mrgreen:
Libertarian. :roll: LOL thats even worse. :lol:
By recently you of course mean since weve been there. The terrorists have been killing their own people since we have been there, detonating car bombs when there isnt a U.S. soldier within miles.
It is unfortunate that they are their, but the target is more important. So a couple of Arab waiters get killed in the process, its definantly worth it considering the amount of people our targets would like to kill.
@M36:
Libertarian. :roll: LOL thats even worse. :lol:
By recently you of course mean since weve been there. The terrorists have been killing their own people since we have been there, detonating car bombs when there isnt a U.S. soldier within miles.
It is unfortunate that they are their, but the target is more important. So a couple of Arab waiters get killed in the process, its definantly worth it considering the amount of people our targets would like to kill.
…and if we were never there, then we wouldn’t have this problem. So, we are still paying for a big mistake. When will this country realize that you have to stop the bleeding in order to get better?
I love carousels. Up and down, round and round…
