The U.S. military (as far as I am aware) does not make a practice of intentionally placing weapons within their civilian population to keep it protected from the moralistic terror organizations around the world. Mute point.
WTC was that. A trade center. Finance, banking the NYSE. If you are asking me to speculate as to whether the murder of thousands (not 60) was justifiable, then I suppose only if he had the secrets to the Colonel's Recipe.

Fact is, those people did not need to die. The organizations that put those extremists in the area didn't just sign their lease last week. They have been there. The government knew it. Their neighbors knew it. I am sorry for those people.

Um....that's not what I said. "What if the 9/11 hijackers were really only trying to kill a member of the US military..."Not what I asked:

"Would you say the same thing about the terrorists as you say about the US troops now?"

Here is what you said about them:

"I have sorrow for the children and innocent families that were harmed in any operations by my fine country's military. That said, whilst these terrorists hide among the innocent and use them as shields and fodder, there is little I could ever expect other than this to happen. They don't care about collateral damage as a result of a strike. It only helps their cause. If you feel so inclined to question how the U.S./Afghani SpecOps could have done this charge without hurting the undeserving people, perhaps your anger should be pointed towards the cowards who hide amongst them."

And here is what I asked you if you would be saying it:

"I have sorrow for the children and innocent families that were harmed in any operations by those fine terrorists of bin Laden. That said, whilst these Americans hide among the innocent and use them as shields and fodder, there is little I could ever expect other than this to happen. They don't care about collateral damage as a result of a strike. It only helps their cause. If you feel so inclined to question how bin Laden's men could have done this charge without hurting the undeserving people, perhaps your anger should be pointed towards the cowards who hide amongst them."
Now, could you please address my points?

You don't have "points". You have "what if's". Not nearly the same. Points entail reason and proof for question.

My "what if's" point out that the difference between the "terrorists" and US troops, in these instances, is that the former do not claim to be targeting military groups. So, since the determining factor that differentiates between "my fine country's military" and "terrorists" seems to be "do they claim to target civilians or military groups," I ask if you would apply your labels consistently. But, instead of answering my questions, you resort to dodging, answering questions I didn't ask to pretend to be participating (and contributing positively), and more dodging.

For the sake of discussion, I can pretend that your questions are actually questions for the moment and then you can leave it at that. Pretending that changing the words "terrorist" for "U.S. Troops" creates some sort of ideological debate is rediculous but I will play your game.

Our military is not recognized by most of the civilized world as "criminals" such as the "terrorists" you seem prone to defend. In U.S. interests (ours) it is more acceptable, however undesireable, to kill 60 innocent people to hit a mark of 5 than it would be for an enemy to kill any number of our population in order to assassinate a member of our military.

I am not sure how many ways I can tell you that you can not compare apples to pumpkins as you have tried. If this answer does not satisfy your interpretation of participation then I am sorry I have failed you and the only comfort I can offer you is that you needn't reply to any post I make on any thread.

Can you help me to understand your arguments please?

For example, this paragraph;
Our military is not recognized by most of the civilized world as "criminals" such as the "terrorists" you seem prone to defend. In U.S. interests (ours) it is more acceptable, however undesireable, to kill 60 innocent people to hit a mark of 5 than it would be for an enemy to kill any number of our population in order to assassinate a member of our military.

60 innocents/ any number of our pop'n. This is rather vague. isnt the only difference here their population and our population?

I am not sure how many ways I can tell you that you can not compare apples to pumpkins as you have tried. If this answer does not satisfy your interpretation of participation then I am sorry I have failed you and the only comfort I can offer you is that you needn't reply to any post I make on any thread.

What would say is the essential difference between these apples and pumpkins? Isnt it merely a matter of relative power?

For my money, there's not a terrorist in the world who wouldnt swap their little bomb vests for a modern conventional battle group.

Whatsmore the accusation against terrorists that they cowards because they hide in populations is utterly nonsensical. In a conflict what possible reason would they have to expose themselves in the open to be strafed by long range weapons? Would you? Would anyone?

Can you not recognise that that makes absolutely no sense?


Lastly, kudos for keeping the discussion interesting and free from baiting and insult.

I will attempt to clarify. The only difference here is our population/their population. Thus, our interest over their interests. I am not condoning the actions by our military but I do refuse to label them as "terrorists" because of them. I hate to use the cliche about breaking eggs for an omelette but this is how the world works. It has been attempted as well, to be said, that this is just like 9/11 on a smaller scale. I have a hard time believing that there was any target other than innocent civilians in that attack.

There is obviously a huge differential in firepower and also tactic. I don't think that it can be argued that the insurgent crusaders have the means that they want. It is obvious that they hide amongst innocent civilians population for cover, concealment and protection. I am not here to insinuate that they should go set up tents in Helmand and discharge their kalashnikovs at U.S. warplanes as they drop their bombs. I'm saying that if the U.S. government put the top brass up in the hotel across the street from my house and an enemy attack destroyed that hotel and also killed my whole family, I would be angry at both the attackers and the people who made me a target.

Hardly. I oppose attacks on civilians for selfish and petty purposes, but at least I'm consistent in my application of that logic.Ah, so really, whether or not it is acceptable, depends on whether or not it is Bush that uses it in his popularity campaign.I am not comparing apples to pumpkins, but rather scumbags to scumbags (terrorists to those US troops). Like I said, the only difference is: is it "our" side? Any apparent uses of logic by either side are simply a matter of convenience and coincidence.Well, as I predicted, it has come down to whether it's "your" side or not that is committing the atrocities. Really, there is nothing else of considerable substance separating the two.

Firslty, thank you for your efforts. You are a breath of fresh air here.

Thats fair enough. Terrorism is a particular phenomenon that should not be put about as the west often tries to do.

Quite. I agree. The trouble is one can then not complain when a terrorist blows up your local bar. Because they are engaged in simply making an omelette also.

re 9/11 Thats right. There was no military target. They were simply breaking some eggs to make the omelette.

This shows a keen logic here. For the fact is that that is exactly what occurs. Villagers in Afghanistan are indeed angry at both participants and the situation continues on a knife edge.
The coalition has the upper hand however because they can offer more than the Taliban. they offer local control and investment. Recently shown by the massive Helmand operation to transport components of a new hydro turbine.

What do the Taliban offer? Their version of Islam, enforcing drug crop production, extra judical justice and zero investment.

Let us hope WS returns soon. Id like to hear his thoughts on these matters.

The question is, is he mad at the US troops who kill civilians indiscriminately? I'm guessing the answer is not, "because he's one of them." That's ultimately the problem here. Nobody is willing to see the big picture. It's much easier to buy into the propaganda on "your side" of the border. The kicker is that "our side" doesn't give a shit about us. You think Bush wouldn't sacrifice a few million Americans if it meant temporarily (we're talking a few months) increasing his popularity by 5%? He sure as hell would. He demonstrated this (although probably in smaller numbers) when he lied to invade Iraq and increase his popularity in 2003 and surprise, surprise, he wins the election by a small bit. Just look at his popularity history and you will find that 9/11 and the Iraq invasion made huge positive spikes in it. this guy relishes American disasters not directly linked to him because it gives him spikes in popularity. He likes them so much, he even re-created one directly, although it was not directly linked to him as a disaster until AFTER the election.

Depressingly I agree with much here. For these people, the other people are of little concern and in the end the right cares little for their own either.

Agreed, between the two parties, the right is much more likely to eat their own young and possibly those of others. It is truly one of the biggest issues within the party. Don't assume however that every C.O. in the fire direction center is a republican. The global threat as it is however, it is "them" or "us" and I would like to be the first to say that I prefer it be "them".

Agreed. Its entirely natural.

I try to rise above, but often I fail. Tribalism will out..

Honestly it is depressing, but not less depressing than never ever hearing a good word about the people/soldiers on the other (our) side from this (you) people as well.

It's a sad world we are living in, when deaths became nothing else than a tool in the fight between left vs right.

__________________
"Homo Homini Lupus"
Thomas Hobbes

A good word from me? Try reading my last posts again.