why are some users calling our people murders when it wa the terrorists who held the civilains in the first place. Do people not realize that in any armed conflict collateral damage will occur? Does thier rants indicate that they support Al Qaeda?
2007-06-18 06:14:58 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
It is called Islamic takiya, look it up. It allows them to blame everything on the infidels. They are allowed to kill us, but when we respond they cry foul (sort of like a two year old's mentality, don't you think?)
2007-06-18 06:19:47 · answer #1 · answered by A Person 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
On the last question first, No anyone concerned with civilian deaths does not support al Qaeda. Comeon.
Although there is some reported terrorist use of human shields, there is a principle in international law about avoiding civilian casualties if possible. Civilians should not be targeted nor killed randomly: that's terrorism. Although some "collateral damage" (I hate that phrase) occurs, if there is targetting or deaths of civilians that is illegal and immoral.
At the very least, not all of the civilian casualties (particularly in Iraq) were caused by terrorists using them as human shields. What is important is that we engage in the difficult and important ethical questions about what it means for us to have killed or targetted civilians? Was it justified? Was it right? Was it good? These are important moral questions that should not be ignored. Although terrorists do use human shields, we still need to ask the tough questions that surround the killing of noncombatants.
For example, we would not tolerate the killing of a hostage in a bank robery just so that we could catch the thief? We actually pay thousands of dollars a year to have trained people to prevent that from happening. Why do we justify the deaths of hostages when held in foreign countries?
2007-06-18 06:24:12 · answer #2 · answered by C.S. 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
We don't support Al Qaeda but had the focus been on Bin Laden and Afghanistan instead of divisively attacking Iraq, this present situation could have been avoided. The escalation was a Republican ploy to make a profit and line the pockets of Corporate America. The really guilty parties would have been brought to justice before now and this thing could have been over without more senseless killing. I promise you we will have to take responsibility for our actions as a Nation.
2007-06-18 06:31:03 · answer #3 · answered by Don W 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The usual blame America first crowd without finding out any of the facts. Supposedly some of the children that survived have said that they were beaten and forced to stay inside the building. Every time they got near the doorway they beaten with a stick and forced back inside. Why do Liberals take the side of people who hide behind children and women and shoot fron inside Mosques and shrines in an attempt to kill Americans from what they think is a safe location?
2007-06-18 06:25:19 · answer #4 · answered by booman17 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Saddam killed thousands of innocents for his own political gains. In Darfur millions die as the fight for territory and oil there escalates. Some may not understand anything but the propaganda or the simple death of a soldier. The idea we entered illegally? False truths edited and misread. Not to say that the passions are not intense just somehow misguided in my opinion.
Collateral damage is more the fault of the insurgents and those who promote suicide for the cause. Americans rarely target civilians. Somedays it has to be hard to tell who is who. What was that one about the 9 mos pregnant lady stopped as she was about to blow herself up in a public place. Unborn child and all. There in lies the sickness. But, some can't get past our costs and they may research stuff but it's not reality TV here. REAL life.
2007-06-18 06:24:37 · answer #5 · answered by Mele Kai 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
No, they are merely of extra use to the British and American governments. curiously, they are "much less evil" than the Iranian government and al-Qaeda operatives that PKK pals are at the instant waging conflict against. on an identical time, that is obtrusive the U. S. and uk inadvertantly allowed their puppet terrorists to attack a key best chum interior the area.
2016-10-17 22:07:28 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hiding among civilian populations is a war crime.
Collateral damage, in and of itself, is not a war crime.
By the way, has Amnesty International, or any other similar group, condemned the al-Qaeda torture handbook?
2007-06-18 06:40:13 · answer #7 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I feel many of them do not realize (maybe because of the websites they read and news they watch) that the terrorist use the deaths for propaganda...when I was in Somalia the "skinnies" did the same thing...they would intentionally go into houses with families in them to get us to kill them so they could claim we were "terrorizing" the people...Islamist can not fight so they use what they can, and these knuckle heads fall for it every time...most of them hide behind their keyboard in their parents basement and talk stuff...they would not dare call a soldier a "baby killer" to their face...
2007-06-18 06:23:12 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Hey... all is fair in love & war right?
Collateral damage my azz, it's time we learn to fight again - to win again. If we worried less about collateral damage - more upon getting the job done right, there would be less "collateral damage" to begin with - or end with.
2007-06-18 06:25:19 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because they are uninformed and only read the headlines which are usually controversial. If they actually took the time to read what really happened they might understand what is going on and then there imaginary world would come tumbling down.
2007-06-18 06:19:11 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋