11–20 of 89 posts
Can someone explain to me why this isn't classed as terrorism or murder when it's done by the US military?
I'm not 100% sure if this is considered "collateral damage", but I think this explains the situation in general: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateral_damage#International...
Can someone explain to me why this isn't classed as terrorism or murder when it's done by the US military?
Can someone explain to me why this isn't classed as terrorism or murder when it's done by the US military?
Do you believe the US is intentionally targeting civilians? If not, this war seems pretty similar to all wars.
It is not our country. Let them rail against America without us pouring gas on the flames by us being there.
I will go back to more startup related comments.
Can someone explain to me why this isn't classed as terrorism or murder when it's done by the US military?
Do you believe the US is intentionally targeting civilians? If not, this war seems pretty similar to all wars.
Example 1: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/24/us/soldier-gets-life-witho...
Example 2: http://www.collateralmurder.com/
Example 3: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1340207/I-didnt-thin...
Sadly, the second part of your comment still remains true. These wars (plural), are pretty similar to all wars because US soldiers and forces have at times been found indulging in the same acts - rapes, killings, indiscriminate bombings, torture - that rampaging armies do.
Can someone explain to me why this isn't classed as terrorism or murder when it's done by the US military?
War sucks. Innocent die.
Cue the pedantic replies.
WikiLeaks shows US pressure for war crimes immunity - https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/55239
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you believe the US is intentionally targeting civilians? If not, this war seems pretty similar to all wars.
Do you believe the US has never intentionally targeted civilians? Example 1: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/24/us/soldier-gets-life-witho... Example 2: http://www.collateralmurder.com/ Example 3: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1340207/I-didnt-thin... Sadly, the second part of your comment still remains true. These wars (plural), are pretty similar to all wars because US soldiers and forces have at times been…
Example 2 also doesn't bolster your claim. I've never seen any proof that the US has ever had a policy of targeting civilians. Yes, collateral damage exists, but that's not the same thing.
Now, if you can produce something that talks about official policy to target civilians, that's a different story. Please, produce that.
Can someone explain to me why this isn't classed as terrorism or murder when it's done by the US military?
Because the intent isn't to terrorize or murder innocent people, but to hit "military" targets. It's akin to dropping bombs on military targets during WW II. Just because they are military targets doesn't mean innocent people aren't killed. So it's classified as something else. And before you go shooting the messenger, keep in mind your asking about classification. If you want to disagree and suggest that it's still…
Oh, the irony.
That's a pedantic distinction, if I ever saw one.
Not to mention nothing about it is correct (perhaps that's why you felt the need to use quotes for the word military).
Such strikes are not done as part of war and do not target military targets -- they were used in places like Pakistan (the US was not at war with it last time I checked) and at functions such as weddings.
Can someone explain to me why this isn't classed as terrorism or murder when it's done by the US military?
Do you believe the US is intentionally targeting civilians? If not, this war seems pretty similar to all wars.
Of course. It's not like it's some new practice either...