|
|
|
|
#2
11-30-2007, 07:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Could We Have Won Vietnam?
[ QUOTE ]
The deliberate targeting of civilians as if they were combatants is terrorism. I don't think it was collateral damage, it was deliberate. [/ QUOTE ] Civilian deaths in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, "collateral damage" or "terrorism"? 
|
|
#4
11-30-2007, 08:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Could We Have Won Vietnam?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The deliberate targeting of civilians as if they were combatants is terrorism. I don't think it was collateral damage, it was deliberate. [/ QUOTE ] Civilian deaths in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, "collateral damage" or "terrorism"? [/ QUOTE ] "Scare populace into admittng defeat". Hard to call it terrorism since it was part of a declared war between two nation states though. I'm also not particularly interested in talking semantics.
|
|
#5
12-01-2007, 05:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Could We Have Won Vietnam?
[ QUOTE ]
The deliberate targeting of civilians as if they were combatants is terrorism. I don't think it was collateral damage, it was deliberate. [/ QUOTE ] It doesnt matter whether it was deliberate or not. Citizens are at risk in a war, period. It isn't terrorism when it is carried out by uniformed soldiers in the context of a war. That has nothing to do with whether the action was right or wrong, but labels are important, and this one doesnt fit. No comment on the statistics? I see youve brushed up on your Chompsky, "Its our fault, it wouldnt have happened if we hadn't been there". Disgusting [censored].
|
|
#6
12-01-2007, 06:01 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Could We Have Won Vietnam?
[ QUOTE ]
It doesnt matter whether it was deliberate or not. Citizens are at risk in a war, period. It isn't terrorism when it is carried out by uniformed soldiers in the context of a war. [/ QUOTE ] So, it is not terrorism when the USA secretly bombs a country, say Cambodia, and because the bombing is secret and they are not supposed to be there, the rules of engagement in force in Vietnam, are ignored? [The reason being that since they are not there, officially, they are not bounds by the rules]. You guys are totally nuts and don't have the beginning of an understanding as to why the US is so unpopular world-wide, with the exception of a few puppet regimes propped up by the US, although even that seems to be failing more and more.
|
|
#7
12-01-2007, 06:11 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Could We Have Won Vietnam?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] It doesnt matter whether it was deliberate or not. Citizens are at risk in a war, period. It isn't terrorism when it is carried out by uniformed soldiers in the context of a war. [/ QUOTE ] So, it is not terrorism when the USA secretly bombs a country, say Cambodia, and because the bombing is secret and they are not supposed to be there, the rules of engagement in force in Vietnam, are ignored? [The reason being that since they are not there, officially, they are not bounds by the rules]. You guys are totally nuts and don't have the beginning of an understanding as to why the US is so unpopular world-wide, with the exception of a few puppet regimes propped up by the US, although even that seems to be failing more and more. [/ QUOTE ] Do you have a reading comprehension problem, or just being an ass? How is your post responsive to the contemporary meaning of "terrorism". Oh, it doesnt. STFU.
|
|
#8
12-01-2007, 06:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Could We Have Won Vietnam?
[ QUOTE ]
Do you have a reading comprehension problem, or just being an ass? [/ QUOTE ] The answer is B.
|
|
#9
12-01-2007, 06:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Could We Have Won Vietnam?
[ QUOTE ]
Do you have a reading comprehension problem, or just being an ass? How is your post responsive to the contemporary meaning of "terrorism". Oh, it doesnt. STFU. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, I get your drift but I don't agree with. You mean the US is always right and everyone else that disagree with her, whatever she does, are the bad guys. Get real!
|
|
#10
12-01-2007, 06:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Could We Have Won Vietnam?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Do you have a reading comprehension problem, or just being an ass? How is your post responsive to the contemporary meaning of "terrorism". Oh, it doesnt. STFU. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, I get your drift but I don't agree with. You mean the US is always right and everyone else that disagree with her, whatever she does, are the bad guys. Get real! [/ QUOTE ] You don't "get anything", or bother to try and "get anything". If you did you would realize your response doesnt have a gd thing to do with what I wrote. I repeat, STFU. Why you arent perma-banned is a mystery to me, unless 2+2 thinks you attract hits because of your entertainment value.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
