http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XGjkyZU2oY&mode=related&search=#
"Civilians are killed by the Americans in all wars (as you can see from this video the whole city was wiped out), so if Americans are entitled to kill civilians why do they expect that their civilians are not targeted and killed? Does it make sense to you?"
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-03 15:08 ID:sbio3BEY
You seem to be making a case for nuking the Mid-east. Pearl Harbour=Hiroshima/Nagasaki therefore 9/11= ?. I can't refute your logic but give us a chance to do it with out all that pissing and moaning first.
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-03 15:38 ID:A7dL/lRI
It's not that we don't expect that our civilians to be targeted and killed. It's that we expect those who do will eventually realize the full measure of our badass response.
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-04 0:19 ID:aBILAOvV
>>2
translation: stop moving about while i'm trying to shoot you.
>>1
Japan was also killing civilians you hypocrite dumbfvck.
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-05 17:24 ID:Ydwgj3vF
Japan is the USAs best friend today. Countries like Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea are a million times better off than China, Vietnam, and North Korea because they adopted the US Democracy and not European Communism.
Some argue that people the very last responsible are the same making resort to toture. War means is likely; the fact that are bound to war, it knows that are reality of crimes against civilians is just unimaginably disgusting. On our TVs we have failed that war crimes to war, it knows that decision for the fact that are bound to get people very last responsible when making that are resolve a problem. War itself is that people to resort. War itself is the very high up may be commit would always be knowing what happen!
I agree were turning into more of a fascist state, than anything else. And if you disagree with me just look at the facts. Our congress doesn't care about the people, there to busy taking money from their 'lobbyists'. The executive branch is run by dictators. And the only people supporting us is the Supreme court. Woopdie-do, like they hold any 'real' power anyway.
>>18
Hi, I finish feeding my ramblings in the translator on Google, turned you Spanish, and then again within English. Awhile of the diversion he was had.
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-09 13:29 ID:0Nchvn+P
Civilians are killed in every war. Targeting civilians is another matter altogether.
Name:
Anonymous2007-05-09 13:35 ID:iDaaCvkC
>>24
SO U ADMIT AMERIKKKA KILLED CIVILIANS!!! AND HOW DO U KNO THAT THEY DID DO IT ON PURPOSE BUT R JUST SAYIN THEY DIDANT?? WUT R U A STUPID LEMMING WHU BALEEVS EVERYTHAN TEH GUBAMANT TELZ U???? AHAHAHAH FAG
When it's a terrorist attack. War is the use of violent means to achieve a goal - however, the modern world has set rules as to what is and isn't acceptable in war. Terrorism is the deliberate targeting of civilian populations with the aim of spreading fear in order to advance a political objective. While war often walks that line, the deliberate bypassing of military targets in favour of civilian ones is what sets terrorism apart. That's the difference between war and terror - often a very small difference, but still an important one.
>>34 the modern world has set rules as to what is and isn't acceptable in war.
Yes, and the USA has consistently ignored those rules.
Terrorism is the deliberate targeting of civilian populations
Once again, when exactly is a civilian death 'targeted'?
Are you the Ouroboros or what? A cyclical definition is not acceptable.
with the aim of spreading fear in order to advance a political objective.
I don't think motives ever matter. It's like arguing between 1st and 2nd degree murder.
ter·ror·ism (těr'ə-rĭz'əm) n. 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.