Basically the same.
-
funkyfry — 11 years ago(February 18, 2015 09:17 AM)
We never launched a terrorist attack in Kabul or Baghdad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Iraq_(1998)
There were dozens of Iraqi civilians killed by missiles that missed their targets, possibly as many or more Iraqi military, and no U.S. or British casualties
Parse words all you want, but when you suffer no casualties and you kill harmless civilians, I call that terrorism.
Did I not love him, Cooch? MY OWN FLESH I DIDN'T LOVE BETTER!!! But he had to say 'Nooooooooo' -
funkyfry — 11 years ago(February 18, 2015 07:03 PM)
yeah, pretty much. Altho to me, the only possible moral difference is the question of whether civilians were targeted, how much effort was made to avoid hurting them, etc. And I don't think the U.S. military cares whatsoever about civilian casualties.
Did I not love him, Cooch? MY OWN FLESH I DIDN'T LOVE BETTER!!! But he had to say 'Nooooooooo' -
DaveR011 — 10 years ago(September 04, 2015 02:58 PM)
only possible moral difference is the question of whether civilians were targeted,
This was clearly not the case unless one does not consider Saddam's palaces and secret police facilities to be legitimate targets.
how much effort was made to avoid hurting them,
Given that civilian casualties are claimed to be in the "dozens"* in spite of some six hundred warheads being detonated in a three-day period, it would seem highly likely that a great deal of care was taken to avoid civilian casualties. Air attacks of a similar scale during WWII usually caused several thousand deaths.- The
Mother Jones
article used as a source for this part of the Wikipedia entry actually says probably no more than a hundred.
And I don't think the U.S. military cares whatsoever about civilian casualties.
The US military, in fact, actually takes a great deal of care to avoid unnecessary non-combatant casualties by means of strictly enforced rules of engagement, target selection, and large scale use of precision guided munitions. Compare US caused civilian casualties today with those from any other war or from wars conducted by non-Western powers.
- The
-
-
the_bamboo_spear — 9 years ago(November 02, 2016 01:51 PM)
The Wolverines were an armed insurgency, but with entirely different motivations. Had they kicked out the Soviet invaders, they wouldn't have started defacing ancient art and imposed strict religious laws against women.
They say "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", but it really depends on the targets you attack. One is guerilla warfare, the other is terrorism. -
DaveR011 — 10 years ago(September 04, 2015 03:05 PM)
I guess I missed the bit where the Wolverines wanted to impose a world-wide mediaeval, totalitarian, theocracy like the Taliban and its Al Qaeda allies. I also missed the bit in the film where they said the Wolverines were one faction in an on-going civil war when the Soviets invaded as well as the bits where they punished Americans for flying kites, not wearing beards of an appropriate length, not wearing burkas, or getting an education.