[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]

[QUOTE="DaJuicyMan"]So it's our fault we have the better technology? I'm not defending the US' actions but come on, that was a bad argument..

DaJuicyMan

In fact, the whole discussion about fairness in war is absurd. The only fair war scenario i can imagine is this: two adversaries with an equal number of soldiers killing themeselves in hand-to-hand combat with no additional equipment whatsoever. Rather unrealistic isn't it? But given the human nature, one is bound to pull out a gun or a knife. That's how is been and that's how is going to be, there never was any fairness in what is in reality, an unfair situation.

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] I'm not comparing anything....don't take my posts out of context. Where did I mention sports? It's a fact that when war is waged on owns turf there will be collateral damage. Now without an enemy to fight....war doesn't happen. So unless the enemy stops their aggression....war will continue as will civilian deaths. If you are looking to blame someone....blame those that started the war with aggressive acts toward the US. Otherwise....the cost of war is on their heads. Simple really...*shrugs*LJS9502_basic

So it's our fault we have the better technology? I'm not defending the US' actions but come on, that was a bad argument..

DaJuicyMan

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Part of war...now if you can get the adversary to play nice...it won't happen.LJS9502_basic

Come on, we all know better than that. There is no play nice, play fair in war. Each side uses its strong sides to attack the adversary's weak sides.

Part of war...now if you can get the adversary to play nice...it won't happen.LJS9502_basic

Come on, we all know better than that. There is no play nice, play fair in war. Each side uses its strong sides to attack the adversary's weak sides.

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]

Like the US has never attacked a civilian target. But i guess Taliban fighters were hiding in there so i guess it's okay to bomb the hell out of it. :?

airshocker

It is, per the Rules of Engagement.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]Collateral damage is an euphemism used by nations with technology to justify when they kill civilians. The 9/11 perpetrators could equally call the innocent people they killed with their attacks collateral damage if they could since their intention was not necessarily to kill civilians but to provoke a moral and economic wound on the US. Civilians just happened to be in the World Trade Center, Pentagon and the Capitol if they had achieved attacking that.airshocker

Wrong. Collateral damage is what sometimes happens if when a military attacks a legitimate military target.

The 9/11 hijackers didn't attack a military target. They attacked a building with thousands of civilians. That's not a legitimate military target.

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"] Not true. If they wanted to destroy a symbol without killing thousands of civilians, we have plenty of those. Such as the Statue of Liberty, Mt Rushmore, etc... And they did it on a weekday when they knew the buildings would be most full of people. And they used full civilian aircraft to boot.Engrish_Major

What i don't get is that people actually believe that the 9/11 attacks were carried out only to kill civilians, that's what media brainwashing can do to a man. Now, i've made this point before, i can't understand how people who were smart enough to orchestrate such a complex attack and their sole intent was civilian casualties didn't realize that attacking a stadium would be much more 'rewarding'. This means that their original intent was not murder of civilians, so i guess that makes them collateral damage.

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"] It's pretty simple, the sole purpose of the people that hit the Pentagon and WTC was not civilian casualties, ergo by your logic the people who died on 9/11 were collateral damage.Engrish_Major

What i don't get is that people actually believe that the 9/11 attacks were carried out only to kill civilians, that's what media brainwashing can do to a man. Now, i've made this point before, i can't understand how people who were smart enough to orchestrate such a complex attack and their sole intent was civilian casualties didn't realize that attacking lets say a stadium would be much more 'rewarding'. This means that their original intent was not murder of civilians, so i guess that makes them collateral damage.