Hence they were political targets, not military.
Show some proof that Afghanis backed the Taliban anywhere near those percentages. (Don't forget, they had been in civil wars for decades before we went in).
Why should I when all you'll do is redefine the terms? I never suggested such a treatment in Afghanistan, but at one time it would likely have been quite appropriate to flatten Fallujiah. Like any tactical element, there are some places where such destruction is more effective than others.
"Why should I when all you'll do is redefine the terms? I never suggested such a treatment in Afghanistan, but at one time it would likely have been quite appropriate to flatten Fallujiah. Like any tactical element, there are some places where such destruction is more effective than others."
Wrong. First of all, I did not change any definitions. You are the one that changed the definition of Dresden and Hiroshima, Nagasaki from military targets to political targets. You answered a question about whether Al Quaeda was a military.
The answer is that Al Quaeda is not a National military. Nazi Germany and Tojo's Japan were a national military with a huge support from the people of each nation. I asked what nation supported Al Quaeda, your response was that I changed the definition. I did not. There is no nation of Al Quaeda. There is a nation that was in civil war, where some harbored Al Quaeda. That nation is called Afghanistan. That nation was in a civil war, which is quite a difference from nations in WWII that almost entirely supported what their national leaders and military were doing.
One more question. Why do you associate a city, Fallujah, as a nation? Also, I thought we were talking about Afghanistan. (And you said I would change the definitions).