Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirarakim
It doesn't illustrate a good point. Although I might not be supportive of every war the US has been involved in, unless you can prove to me that the US army purposely targeted civilians then something like this is not comparable.
|
Purpose? They died through an ACCIDENT that should have never happened. In this particular case, it was a WEDDING for god sakes. Think about the civilians who support the terrorists; are they just stupid? scared and forced to give shelter? No. To them, the enemy is the US, they are the ones destroying their homes and killing their families. How can you blame them for that? Its the obvious truth that they can see. If you plea to the world about the atrocities being committed, forget not helping you, they wont even BELIEVE you. So.. you hide terrorists with civilains there will be collateral damage = if you support these guys, these terrorists, (who are often your brothers, fathers, and friends), you will likely lose your life? How is this any different from the people who died in boston?
http://www.latimes.com/news/world/wo...,6644610.story
"NATO's International Security Assistance Force said it was investigating the airstrike and couldn’t immediately confirm reports that a large number of children were killed.
"We are still assessing the situation," said John Manley, an ISAF spokesperson. "We’re aware of the allegations that civilians died. We take these seriously."""
I hear this all too often, and its just not true. Do people think going to war justifies killing civilians more than terrorism does?