You mean you can't tell the difference between military retaliation/counter-attack and the purposeful targeting of civilians? Say, you have been toking too much, and the THC has obviously slowed your synaptic connections, I think.
Now..IF Israel had used their airforce from the beginning of this most recent conflict, and they chose NOT to, just for the very reason that the Israeli military policy has been to AVOID civilian deaths, the "Palestinian" people would have been annihilated in about 30 minutes, and this past year of conflict would never have happened. Up to this point, the Israeli military has tried to target ONLY terrorist cells living amongst "Palestinian" people ( "Palestinian" being the euphemism for peoples of Arabic origin and identification living within the borders of Israel, and the term embraced by the anti-Israel ie anti-Jewish world press). Why they chose to use fighters at this time, instead of infantry and tanks, I do not know. Yes, the deaths of children and innocent civilians is tragic, but was certainly not the intention of the military operation.
You can't see the difference between an intentional attack upon civilians like 9-11, or the bombing of schoolbuses, and market places(where obviously the MAIN targets are civilians, not soldiers), and a military response to such attacks?
Let's take a hypothetical example. You live in England, correct? (I am not sure..). A certain group within your country wants their own territory, rights and self-government, and they wish to use acts of violence to accomplish their aims. They plant bombs in market places, buses, and subways. Are these military targets, or will the majority of casualties be civilians?
The British Army then sends out soldiers and tanks etc..on a search and destroy mission for the perpetrators. Is this an act of "terrorism" though? Yes, innocent civilians may be killed in the process, but is this an act of planned terrorism?
If the same scenario took place on American soil (and it may do so shortly, based upon information we are now learning), would American military response be "terrorism"?
Re: Israel/Amerika You're fucked
Eugene
location: Maryland
listening to: Alexander Scriabin-The Solo Piano Works, Maria Lettberg
registered: 1999.08.12
posts: 3540
[view all posts]
[view all posts]
E
Eugene
(view)
You mean you can't tell the difference between military retaliation/counter-attack and the purposeful targeting of civilians? Say, you have been toking too much, and the THC has obviously slowed your synaptic connections, I think.
Now..IF Israel had used their airforce from the beginning of this most recent conflict, and they chose NOT to, just for the very reason that the Israeli military policy has been to AVOID civilian deaths, the "Palestinian" people would have been annihilated in about 30 minutes, and this past year of conflict would never have happened. Up to this point, the Israeli military has tried to target ONLY terrorist cells living amongst "Palestinian" people ( "Palestinian" being the euphemism for peoples of Arabic origin and identification living within the borders of Israel, and the term embraced by the anti-Israel ie anti-Jewish world press). Why they chose to use fighters at this time, instead of infantry and tanks, I do not know. Yes, the deaths of children and innocent civilians is tragic, but was certainly not the intention of the military operation.
You can't see the difference between an intentional attack upon civilians like 9-11, or the bombing of schoolbuses, and market places(where obviously the MAIN targets are civilians, not soldiers), and a military response to such attacks?
Let's take a hypothetical example. You live in England, correct? (I am not sure..). A certain group within your country wants their own territory, rights and self-government, and they wish to use acts of violence to accomplish their aims. They plant bombs in market places, buses, and subways. Are these military targets, or will the majority of casualties be civilians?
The British Army then sends out soldiers and tanks etc..on a search and destroy mission for the perpetrators. Is this an act of "terrorism" though? Yes, innocent civilians may be killed in the process, but is this an act of planned terrorism?
If the same scenario took place on American soil (and it may do so shortly, based upon information we are now learning), would American military response be "terrorism"?
Now..IF Israel had used their airforce from the beginning of this most recent conflict, and they chose NOT to, just for the very reason that the Israeli military policy has been to AVOID civilian deaths, the "Palestinian" people would have been annihilated in about 30 minutes, and this past year of conflict would never have happened. Up to this point, the Israeli military has tried to target ONLY terrorist cells living amongst "Palestinian" people ( "Palestinian" being the euphemism for peoples of Arabic origin and identification living within the borders of Israel, and the term embraced by the anti-Israel ie anti-Jewish world press). Why they chose to use fighters at this time, instead of infantry and tanks, I do not know. Yes, the deaths of children and innocent civilians is tragic, but was certainly not the intention of the military operation.
You can't see the difference between an intentional attack upon civilians like 9-11, or the bombing of schoolbuses, and market places(where obviously the MAIN targets are civilians, not soldiers), and a military response to such attacks?
Let's take a hypothetical example. You live in England, correct? (I am not sure..). A certain group within your country wants their own territory, rights and self-government, and they wish to use acts of violence to accomplish their aims. They plant bombs in market places, buses, and subways. Are these military targets, or will the majority of casualties be civilians?
The British Army then sends out soldiers and tanks etc..on a search and destroy mission for the perpetrators. Is this an act of "terrorism" though? Yes, innocent civilians may be killed in the process, but is this an act of planned terrorism?
If the same scenario took place on American soil (and it may do so shortly, based upon information we are now learning), would American military response be "terrorism"?
