Posted on 10/02/2015 6:44:54 AM PDT by C19fan
OK. We have lots of Lebanese in this country who came here to get away from the Syrians.
So, Roosevelt was a war criminal? Truman also?
The US didn't target civilians but we didn't let their presence deter us from doing every damn thing necessary to win wars. And that's as it should be. If you're going to fight, fight to win. Period.
I read this as “Old, Dumb Blonds.” Seriously.
So why are you justifying the targeting of civilians?
Islamists hide behind their women and children, so I should care more for them than they do?. They have, and continue to torture and kill Christian men, women and children. They want us all DEAD. They are ALL potential terrorists.
Their women sang and baked cookies as Americans hung burnt and broken from a bridge. And their children? Well, a child of an islamist is like a cute little pit-bull puppy. Not much harm as a babe, but will tear your throat out when grown.
What is hilarious is the Russians releasing footage of what looks like terribly inaccurate and ineffective bombing. Some of it looked like they used a canister munition with a outrageously high opening altitude.
Russia is on a Budget
Are you basically telling me you want the US to start nuking entire cities, or fire bombing civilians just for the sake of killing and terrorizing civilians? Why is there even a need to do that? That's what I take from this question, since we're talking about Russian targeting of civilians here.
In other words, the answer to my question is "yes," you think an entire population needs to be wiped out, including all the women and children. Plenty of Muslims all over planet Earth, millions here in America, millions in the middle east like the Kurds who love us, whom you'd be happy to murder.
This is stupid and insane.
Those who follow mohammed the goat god, yes. Any other, I will mourn for, so don’t put words in my mouth.
Do you think the United States had the “moral high ground” in World War II?
Spare the aspirin factories!
You seriously underestimate the Russians.
Sure it was...
War is “more brutal” with dumb bombs? I suppose smart bombs are somehow less brutal, less offensive and less deadly than dumb bombs.
War is supposed to be brutal and hideous. The more brutal it is, the less we want to engage in it. At some point, those on the receiving end of such “brutal” tactics will reflect on it and say, “Damn, we’re not gonna piss those guys off again!”
When fighting enemies in a group with mixed allegiances, if you can surgically knock out the rogues that becomes an advantage. Because another possible consequence of “p-ssing off” a population that wasn’t already is to get them to want to attack YOU.
You're upset because all your Chechen friends in Syria will be dead soon.
There is a difference between bombings which result in civilian casualties and bombings which target civilians.
Why do you feel the need to rewrite my post rather than answer the question? Roosevelt authorized the Dresden raids and Tokyo, Truman the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nukes. Were they war criminals, noob?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.