if people who kill americans are terrorists what do you call americans in foreign land killing innocents?

Question

someone was trying to tell me that what Bush is doing is to "make us safe" and that it's terrorists who harm us yet what would you call the soldiers whom have gone over to foreign be it this war or previous wars and killed innocent lives, does that make American soldiers terrorists? how do you view such a idea that seems somewhat similar?

i am born and raise in new york city. where should i go home to? i'm asking a question, i am not asking for you to judge me. and i'm not a typical safe american girl. the word safe rarely applies to anyone these days with everything that goes on.

i was here for 9.11. ground zero isn't far and i saw the everything that went on days after it happen so i have a personal account of what happened that day and the days after.

Answer 1

bush the terrorist has killed more civilians than osama the terrorist.

Answer 2

Soldiers are told to do a job. There are rules to war, as horrible as that sounds. So long as your soldiers are abiding by the rules of the Geneva Convention, you can't bother talking about us being terrorists.

In all fairness, if you look at the wars we've been in lately, you can separate it into two categories. Wars such as both Gulf Wars were about making sure oil supplies will forever reach the United States. Wars such as what we did in Bosnia would be termed as humanitarian wars. How an oxymoron like that comes into the picture is quite astonishing.

However, taking innocent lives on purpose is horrible, but you'll find very little of that coming from our soldiers. True, it happens, and I don't think you'd find a single soldier that felt anything but horror at the news that it happened.

There is a BIG difference between the soldiers of the nation fighting against various forms of oppression and the soldiers of a tyrant, warlord or other various psychopathic leaders killing their opposition strictly because they were the opposition.

Granted, I'm not defending Bush Sr. or Jr. Both Gulf Wars were unnecessary conflicts founded on nothing but lies to the American People. One could even argue that Bosnia was as well, but only to a point.

It's not much of a consolation to a family that's just had a rocket shot through the garden and kills half of them, and it's just awful. But don't confuse sociopathic behavior like what Iraq's former leader was involved in and compare it to our own military. We're not thugs in the US. Well, mostly.

Answer 3

I have found when someone posts manifestos like this, they are really trying more to convince themselves of its content more than who they're ranting at. That should be the first red flag that should make you stop and think about what you're saying. You are more of a follower than you think, because you have bought into hook, line and sinker, the radical lefts' misconception of Republicans and the Conservative understanding of how things work. Not being a blind follower is a good thing, I commend you for that. However, you should follow a person (or people) for the right reasons. Following them for the wrong reasons is just as bad as being a blind follower. Warning flag #2, hyperbole and diatribe fills the vacuum where factual, rational arguments cannot be found. You want to know what the Republicans brought to the table? Since they were shut out of all health care legislation, they made their own. It's key tenants are lifting restrictions to marketing health plans out of state, thereby increasing competition. The other major point is tort reform. The cost of malpractice insurance is driving doctors out of business. Those who stay, pass this on in their fees, which show up in our premiums. Texas has done tort reform. They're not followers either. Premiums have dropped and doctors are flocking to Texas, increasing competition. All this for practically free. The CBO scored this plan. It is the only one that actually lowers premiums. I wonder why you didn't hear about that? Why bother trying to tell you more? Since you're so busy talking, you have no time to listen. (warning flag #3)

Answer 4

I understand what you are saying. I always thought about it this way. Many people here in the USA are really fed up with the administration. How would we feel if another country came here to help us out like we helped Iraq?
It really puts a new spin on things when you put yourself in their place.

The only reason for war should be, if another country brought an army here to fight us.
Terrorism is not an army its a tactic.
This country has stooped to an all new low by using torture and invading another country.
They are also using illegal wire tap and torture on some of its own people in the name of freedom.
They have also infiltrated peaceful groups and tried to incite unlawful actions.
Is this the KGB or the CIA?

Answer 5

It all is a matter of perspective.

I would think if you were an Iraqi civilian who endured American soldiers invading your house and killing and raping members of your family or you, you'd have a very different perspective than American civilians.

People know these things go on, but they don't want to talk about it.

The innocents always pay for the decisions made by the leaders!

Answer 6

No, because America isn't targetting civilians, they are targetting terrorists and their supporters. All wars have collateral damage, but the standing order in Iraq isn't to shoot everyone they find there. If it were, the country would be empty by now. To me, it seems like more Iraqi civilians are dying at the hands of other Iraqis than from American bullets.

Not everyone who kills Americans are terrorists. But people who are targetting American (and Iraqi) civilians are terrorists.

Answer 7

Everybody who kills an American is not a terrorist. That's the flaw in your logic.

What qualifies somebody as a terrorist is pretty vague and currently not widely agreed on. My view is they must target without regard to civilian loss and they have to be a group which hides itself to avoid consequences of it's actions.

As such I don't believe national armies can be terrorists.

Answer 8

Americans are not killing innocents...at least not on purpose or in any large number. over 85% of the civilian deaths in Iraq have been caused by insurgent attacks on markets, weddings, schools, funerals, mosques, and other publice gathering places.

American Soldiers are working to defend those who cannot defend themselves and eliminate terrorist threats overseas and at home.

Answer 9

ur obviously a typical american girl, safe in her house and doesnt know jack **** about anything in the world


its something called "combat"

theres no garantuee that civilians will never be harmed

bullets have no friends or foe
artillery rounds have no friends or hoe
mortar rounds have no friends or foe
fighter jets have no friends or foe
tanks dont have no friends or foe

civilians will aways be a downside to war

your making it seem like soldiers are going out executing civilians everyday on patrol

Answer 10

If you have been here since 9/11 (as your previous answer states) and you are so unhappy with America.

Then go home.

Obviously you do not believe in democracy and the sacrifices that have to be made to attain it. Perhaps Iraq is a complete mess now, (just like America was during her fight for freedom), but look how free we are now, and someday Iraq will be the same way.

Believe it or not, freedom does have a price.

OH, and tell Rosie I said hello.

Answer 11

well according to our bylaws, rules and testimonys, they are called patriots!!!

and therefore in the pursuit of bringing the whereforesaid foriegn goverment the socalled freeedom that we insist is what they want and need wich gives us absolute immunity from the rules of engagement when therefore confronted by unknown terrorist, who may be taken under the rules of engagement and placed under the category of "combatant "wich therefore disqualifys said party from the protection and rights of habeous corpus!!!

wherefore that right wich is no longer granted to such combatant terrorist,in wich no rules shall overide the prevailing rule that was issued prior to the issuer of the origial function of this statute!!!

get it?!!

dont mattr what ya call it well write a law to cover it!!!