Replies

gee, I guess everything that we do is not terrorism. They were all soldiers in Hiroshima, Belgrade, Bagdad, Kabul, etc?

gee, I guess everything that we do is not terrorism.

Gee, the light bulb that just went on over your head wouldn't even illuminate a dorm-room refrigerator.

gee, I guess everything that we do is not terrorism. They were all soldiers in Hiroshima, Belgrade, Bagdad, Kabul, etc?

Is this a form of retreat from your original statement? A watering down of the word "terror"?

There is "initiatory force and "retaliatory force". Terror applied in retaliation is expected and invited by the perpetraitors of initiatory force. The casualties of Hiroshima, Bagdad, and Kabul were the result of retaliatory force and the enemy bears the burden of responsibility of such acts.

Belgrade is a different matter in my opinion, But Clinton thought it was a good war. Who could argue with such a man of peace(piece)?

"gee, I guess everything that we do is not terrorism. They were all soldiers in Hiroshima, Belgrade, Bagdad, Kabul, etc"

Oh, looks like I was wrong, you ARE trolling, in that you pulled out your playbook of no-thought-required U.S.-bashing. Hiroshima, huh. How much do you know about history? Not much, I'd say. Did you know that Hiroshima was home to the battallion that gleefully helped slaughter 150,000 civilians in Nanking, China? Did you know the japanese were given warning after warning to surrender or else...after we dropped the first atomic bomb, they still refused. Only after the second did they yield....Did you know that had we not used fatman and little boy, the conservative estimates of U.S. and allied deaths was several times that of the casualities of Hiroshima/Nagasaki...AND THAT'S JUST ON THE ALLIED SIDE!. There was no such thing as a non-militarized area in japan...there were fortifications everywhere, and the war would've undoubtedly gone on and on.

Yugoslavia is, as someone else said, another matter...that was a nasty buyproduct (sic) of the Clintonazis and the new reich of NATO. I sure as hell didn't vote for that clown...did you?

Baghdad? So you're blaming us for Saddam's actions? Granted, I don't agree with our policy for the past decade regarding IRAQ, we should've ignored the Arab whiners and advisors who said we shouldn't remove Saddam and ousted the f**ker, but blaming the U.S. because Saddam is a megalomaniac is absurd. Did you know Iraq's oil production is practically at the point it was before the gulf war? Saddam could easily provide for his people, he just chooses to feed his war machine and build new palaces and monuments to his grandeur (or delusions thereof).

Kabul. I think it's interesting how each argument gets progressively weaker....it's obvious to me that U.S. forces to everything possible to avoid innocent deaths, especially when the Talibums (who park their tanks and fighter jets in residential neighborhoods and playgrounds) clearly use afghans as human shields. ANY innocent deaths caused by the U.S. is unintentional...keyword is "UNINTENTIONAL". You seem to miss that keypoint...using 747's full of people and jet fuel against buildings that would normally be full to capacity (thank god they weren't) of folks like you and me just trying to make a living clearly doesn't fall under the category of "unintentional" and neither does waiting until hundreds of humanitarian rescue personel are on the scene to slam the next one in.

Please, go troll and cry "censorship" somewhere else, maybe LewRockwell or antiwar.com?...you don't know the meaning of censorship.

Oh, so it's hate, is it? Well, we're only doing it for The Children, so they can grow up in a non-judgemental, sort of way. Or is it that we're the VRWC? It's all our fault, you know.