Lately, I´ve run into some really really nice people here on answers. I tried to print out what they said and give it to a cultural historian who is an expert on idiots from the midwest. He translated it for me (because I obviously don´t speak English well enough for some), and he told me it was a bunch of jargon. Anyway here is what they basically meant. A conservative doesn´t go strapping bombs to himself and killing innocent people. So...I guess it´s better to bomb a country, and bomb the hospitals that are receiving the hurt, and target bomb the infrastructure, to compliment, the people who are already doing so well from the sanctions...my question is what´s the difference???
2007-02-20 20:50:47 · 8 answers · asked by nassim420 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I am NOT on either side. Sorry Grandpa, for having to point that out again.
2007-02-20 20:55:47 · update #1
And for the first couple people that answered, what is my question??? Look up, and read the title or the last line from my first post, I´m not going to just type the same question all over again, cuz that is just plain silly in my book.
2007-02-20 20:58:07 · update #2
And for the third person, the difference is intent huh. Sanctions...what are their intentions?? Nucular weapons created by the American govt´...what are their intentions?? In case you don´t catch the drift, I´ll tell you. To hurt and kill as many people as blindly as possible so nobody is around to have answers, and lead commissions. Terrorism is a horrible thing to me, but dirty warfare in the name of ´protecting the people against turrists´ just doesn´t fly with me buddy. And that makes me NOTHING more than a person that is allowed to have an opinion. What side am I on? Not on those two, buddies, I am for LOVE and RESPECT. Until the ship lands, Dusty.
2007-02-20 21:02:44 · update #3
Thanks Mikey. You really answered that one. What about this...two points, some modern men will do anything...two points atleast your not selling yourself on the corner, huh. LOL, I gotta give this one a rest. Don´t worry, I´ll close the can in a bit more than three hours so the worms won´t get too dried out. Ba bye.
2007-02-20 21:13:21 · update #4
You just listed all the differences. Read your question.
2007-02-20 20:54:29 · answer #1 · answered by Cybeq 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The country in question was a rogue.It was in violation of world sanctions and had invaded two of its neighbors. If Iraq's invasion had occurred with no history behind it you might have an argument,but it did not. Iraq was a threat to its neighbors its citizens and the world as a whole. It was given more than ample time to disarm and show that it had. Instead it played games and confused the issue. When you assault your neighbors for no reason other than personal greed you can not call the police that arrest you terrorists.
That there is still a country is proof of our restraint. We could have carpet bombed the country or nuked it and avoided all of the crap we are putting up with now. We did not we used precision weapons to insure the lowest possible casualties. We still are not the ones doing the killing in Iraq you can blame that on yourselves. If you are willing to kill each other over your brand of Islam we know you would surely try to kill us for not following it at all.
2007-02-21 06:27:34 · answer #2 · answered by Tommy G. 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The difference is intent. A suicide bomber choices his target and wont detonate until he is there(unless he is brittish and he cant even manage that). They intentionally target non hositle targets
If during a confict against terror a bomb targeting hosile targets goes astray it can hurt non hostile targets but it would be crazy to suggest this was intentional as there is nothing to gain from it
2007-02-21 04:57:55 · answer #3 · answered by a_kind_of_magic69 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Lord have mercy boy, whats the matter with you? I do hope you have more since than to listen to that crap. Freedom isnt free, and yes innocent people will die, but to blow yourself up in the hopes of becoming a king with 21 virgins is a little over the top. We have to live in this world.
Your question is kinda ....welll scatter brained. Wake up America
2007-02-21 04:59:46 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
1. Israel and Jewish people.
2. Bush and USA government (pig)
3. Blair and Brit government (doggy)
2007-02-21 06:53:47 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The difference is which side your on! Which side are you on? If your not on either side then mind to your business,I agree with stoptheinvasion this guy is just a self righteous rabble rousing goofball
2007-02-21 04:54:31 · answer #6 · answered by JOHN D 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
The Bush administration is the real threat to this world...they are the real terrorist.
2007-02-21 06:00:45 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
Think about that one.
2007-02-21 05:20:01 · answer #8 · answered by emiliosailez 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋