I think I am starting to see a trend in this list of terrorist attacks.

[frigidweirdo]

Ah, the UN, which the US will work to control.......

It's all how global politics works, China is working towards the aim of controlling enough countries that it can do whatever it likes and the UN will never condemn them.

Doesn't make it right. Doesn't make invading Iraq better than bombing some civilians in America.

As many as four military lawyers are available 24 hours a day for commanders to consult before they give the order to shoot anyone. These lawyers are called judge advocate generals and they must undergo special training in the Geneva conventions in Charlottesville, Virginia, before they deploy. The military lawyers are required to make sure that an operation – including the kind of weapons to be used and the risk of civilian casualties

PLUS, these wars/attacks are against terrorists hiding with civilians /etc
How lawyers sign off on drone attacks | Pratap Chatterjee

Who decides they're terrorists? Oh, wait, the US does.

So, get this, this is your narrative.

The US says this group is a terrorist group. The terrorist group says the US is a terrorist group. The terrorist group attacks the US, oh, they're bad. The US attacks the said terrorist group, they're good.

How?

very stupid shit
plain and simple--the US does not target innocent civilians as policy
don't try the stupid double talk/twisting crap

You're clearly not reading what I'm writing.

you clearly do not understand basic English
you CLEARLY have not read/researched any history on the subject
you claim the US commits terrorism as policy --PROVE it!!!!

terrorists do not sentence their ''soldiers'' to prison for killing civilians
etc etc
William Calley - Wikipedia

Seriously? Are you fucking serious?

The point I'm making, as it seems to have completely gone over your head, is that what the US does is actually WORSE than what the terrorists are doing.

Labels are labels. Something doesn't become bad simply because it meets the requirements of a label, and the same for good. Or didn't you get that?

 

[harmonica]

PLUS, these wars/attacks are against terrorists hiding with civilians /etc
How lawyers sign off on drone attacks | Pratap Chatterjee

Who decides they're terrorists? Oh, wait, the US does.

So, get this, this is your narrative.

The US says this group is a terrorist group. The terrorist group says the US is a terrorist group. The terrorist group attacks the US, oh, they're bad. The US attacks the said terrorist group, they're good.

How?

very stupid shit
plain and simple--the US does not target innocent civilians as policy
don't try the stupid double talk/twisting crap

You're clearly not reading what I'm writing.

you clearly do not understand basic English
you CLEARLY have not read/researched any history on the subject
you claim the US commits terrorism as policy --PROVE it!!!!

terrorists do not sentence their ''soldiers'' to prison for killing civilians
etc etc
William Calley - Wikipedia

Seriously? Are you fucking serious?

The point I'm making, as it seems to have completely gone over your head, is that what the US does is actually WORSE than what the terrorists are doing.

Labels are labels. Something doesn't become bad simply because it meets the requirements of a label, and the same for good. Or didn't you get that?

....lawfully defending yourself by attacking the attackers is worse than murdering innocent civilians??
???!!!!

 

[harmonica]

PLUS, these wars/attacks are against terrorists hiding with civilians /etc
How lawyers sign off on drone attacks | Pratap Chatterjee

Who decides they're terrorists? Oh, wait, the US does.

So, get this, this is your narrative.

The US says this group is a terrorist group. The terrorist group says the US is a terrorist group. The terrorist group attacks the US, oh, they're bad. The US attacks the said terrorist group, they're good.

How?

very stupid shit
plain and simple--the US does not target innocent civilians as policy
don't try the stupid double talk/twisting crap

You're clearly not reading what I'm writing.

you clearly do not understand basic English
you CLEARLY have not read/researched any history on the subject
you claim the US commits terrorism as policy --PROVE it!!!!

terrorists do not sentence their ''soldiers'' to prison for killing civilians
etc etc
William Calley - Wikipedia

Seriously? Are you fucking serious?

The point I'm making, as it seems to have completely gone over your head, is that what the US does is actually WORSE than what the terrorists are doing.

Labels are labels. Something doesn't become bad simply because it meets the requirements of a label, and the same for good. Or didn't you get that?

hahahah
you just fked up
what the terrorists do is illegal per the Geneva Convention/etc = murder is ILLEGAL--everywhere
what the US does is legal...killing in combat/war/etc is legal

 

[frigidweirdo]

Who decides they're terrorists? Oh, wait, the US does.

So, get this, this is your narrative.

The US says this group is a terrorist group. The terrorist group says the US is a terrorist group. The terrorist group attacks the US, oh, they're bad. The US attacks the said terrorist group, they're good.

How?

very stupid shit
plain and simple--the US does not target innocent civilians as policy
don't try the stupid double talk/twisting crap

You're clearly not reading what I'm writing.

you clearly do not understand basic English
you CLEARLY have not read/researched any history on the subject
you claim the US commits terrorism as policy --PROVE it!!!!

terrorists do not sentence their ''soldiers'' to prison for killing civilians
etc etc
William Calley - Wikipedia

Seriously? Are you fucking serious?

The point I'm making, as it seems to have completely gone over your head, is that what the US does is actually WORSE than what the terrorists are doing.

Labels are labels. Something doesn't become bad simply because it meets the requirements of a label, and the same for good. Or didn't you get that?

....lawfully defending yourself by attacking the attackers is worse than murdering innocent civilians??
???!!!!

The US INVADED a foreign country simply because it could and it wanted to reduce the impact of sovereign countries to come together and form a cartel to increase their profits.

In the process up to one million innocent people were killed.

Now, you're comparing this to terrorists who may go and kill like 100 people.

Innocent people? How innocent is a voter?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Who decides they're terrorists? Oh, wait, the US does.

So, get this, this is your narrative.

The US says this group is a terrorist group. The terrorist group says the US is a terrorist group. The terrorist group attacks the US, oh, they're bad. The US attacks the said terrorist group, they're good.

How?

very stupid shit
plain and simple--the US does not target innocent civilians as policy
don't try the stupid double talk/twisting crap

You're clearly not reading what I'm writing.

you clearly do not understand basic English
you CLEARLY have not read/researched any history on the subject
you claim the US commits terrorism as policy --PROVE it!!!!

terrorists do not sentence their ''soldiers'' to prison for killing civilians
etc etc
William Calley - Wikipedia

Seriously? Are you fucking serious?

The point I'm making, as it seems to have completely gone over your head, is that what the US does is actually WORSE than what the terrorists are doing.

Labels are labels. Something doesn't become bad simply because it meets the requirements of a label, and the same for good. Or didn't you get that?

hahahah
you just fked up
what the terrorists do is illegal per the Geneva Convention/etc = murder is ILLEGAL--everywhere
what the US does is legal...killing in combat/war/etc is legal

And who wrote the Geneva Convention? Who decides what is legal and what isn't legal?

 

[rightwinger]

Ah, "unlawful", and the US makes the laws......

It's like murder v. execution
Opium v. morphine

Words that have different meanings depending on which direction you're looking at it from.

no--the Geneva Convention/UN/etc make the laws
it is not US policy to attack innocent civilians
..there have been and always will be lone wolves/mistakes/etc
but it is not US policy
terrorist DIRECTLY target innocent civilians, as a policy--this is UNDENIABLE
the US does not as a policy

Ah, the UN, which the US will work to control.......

It's all how global politics works, China is working towards the aim of controlling enough countries that it can do whatever it likes and the UN will never condemn them.

Doesn't make it right. Doesn't make invading Iraq better than bombing some civilians in America.

As many as four military lawyers are available 24 hours a day for commanders to consult before they give the order to shoot anyone. These lawyers are called judge advocate generals and they must undergo special training in the Geneva conventions in Charlottesville, Virginia, before they deploy. The military lawyers are required to make sure that an operation – including the kind of weapons to be used and the risk of civilian casualties

PLUS, these wars/attacks are against terrorists hiding with civilians /etc
How lawyers sign off on drone attacks | Pratap Chatterjee

Who decides they're terrorists? Oh, wait, the US does.

So, get this, this is your narrative.

The US says this group is a terrorist group. The terrorist group says the US is a terrorist group. The terrorist group attacks the US, oh, they're bad. The US attacks the said terrorist group, they're good.

How?

very stupid shit
plain and simple--the US does not target innocent civilians as policy
don't try the stupid double talk/twisting crap

Tell that to the people of Hiroshima

 

[harmonica]

no--the Geneva Convention/UN/etc make the laws
it is not US policy to attack innocent civilians
..there have been and always will be lone wolves/mistakes/etc
but it is not US policy
terrorist DIRECTLY target innocent civilians, as a policy--this is UNDENIABLE
the US does not as a policy

Ah, the UN, which the US will work to control.......

It's all how global politics works, China is working towards the aim of controlling enough countries that it can do whatever it likes and the UN will never condemn them.

Doesn't make it right. Doesn't make invading Iraq better than bombing some civilians in America.

As many as four military lawyers are available 24 hours a day for commanders to consult before they give the order to shoot anyone. These lawyers are called judge advocate generals and they must undergo special training in the Geneva conventions in Charlottesville, Virginia, before they deploy. The military lawyers are required to make sure that an operation – including the kind of weapons to be used and the risk of civilian casualties

PLUS, these wars/attacks are against terrorists hiding with civilians /etc
How lawyers sign off on drone attacks | Pratap Chatterjee

Who decides they're terrorists? Oh, wait, the US does.

So, get this, this is your narrative.

The US says this group is a terrorist group. The terrorist group says the US is a terrorist group. The terrorist group attacks the US, oh, they're bad. The US attacks the said terrorist group, they're good.

How?

very stupid shit
plain and simple--the US does not target innocent civilians as policy
don't try the stupid double talk/twisting crap

Tell that to the people of Hiroshima

that was legal/lawful/etc as many cities were bombed
AND--they were not surrendering
they still didn't want to surrender AFTER the A--bombs destroyed their cities
AND in the end more people were saved by the Abombs
you're point is worthless
Operation Downfall: How America Would Have Invaded Japan (It Would Have Been Hell)

 

[harmonica]

very stupid shit
plain and simple--the US does not target innocent civilians as policy
don't try the stupid double talk/twisting crap

You're clearly not reading what I'm writing.

you clearly do not understand basic English
you CLEARLY have not read/researched any history on the subject
you claim the US commits terrorism as policy --PROVE it!!!!

terrorists do not sentence their ''soldiers'' to prison for killing civilians
etc etc
William Calley - Wikipedia

Seriously? Are you fucking serious?

The point I'm making, as it seems to have completely gone over your head, is that what the US does is actually WORSE than what the terrorists are doing.

Labels are labels. Something doesn't become bad simply because it meets the requirements of a label, and the same for good. Or didn't you get that?

hahahah
you just fked up
what the terrorists do is illegal per the Geneva Convention/etc = murder is ILLEGAL--everywhere
what the US does is legal...killing in combat/war/etc is legal

And who wrote the Geneva Convention? Who decides what is legal and what isn't legal?

AND it is basic COMMON SENSE!! that's who!!
..you should not DIRECTLY target innocent civilians--which is UNDENIABLY what terrorists do
..the US does not

 

[harmonica]

very stupid shit
plain and simple--the US does not target innocent civilians as policy
don't try the stupid double talk/twisting crap

You're clearly not reading what I'm writing.

you clearly do not understand basic English
you CLEARLY have not read/researched any history on the subject
you claim the US commits terrorism as policy --PROVE it!!!!

terrorists do not sentence their ''soldiers'' to prison for killing civilians
etc etc
William Calley - Wikipedia

Seriously? Are you fucking serious?

The point I'm making, as it seems to have completely gone over your head, is that what the US does is actually WORSE than what the terrorists are doing.

Labels are labels. Something doesn't become bad simply because it meets the requirements of a label, and the same for good. Or didn't you get that?

....lawfully defending yourself by attacking the attackers is worse than murdering innocent civilians??
???!!!!

The US INVADED a foreign country simply because it could and it wanted to reduce the impact of sovereign countries to come together and form a cartel to increase their profits.

In the process up to one million innocent people were killed.

Now, you're comparing this to terrorists who may go and kill like 100 people.

Innocent people? How innocent is a voter?

what country was that?

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Ah, "unlawful", and the US makes the laws......

It's like murder v. execution
Opium v. morphine

Words that have different meanings depending on which direction you're looking at it from.

no--the Geneva Convention/UN/etc make the laws
it is not US policy to attack innocent civilians
..there have been and always will be lone wolves/mistakes/etc
but it is not US policy
terrorist DIRECTLY target innocent civilians, as a policy--this is UNDENIABLE
the US does not as a policy

Ah, the UN, which the US will work to control.......

It's all how global politics works, China is working towards the aim of controlling enough countries that it can do whatever it likes and the UN will never condemn them.

Doesn't make it right. Doesn't make invading Iraq better than bombing some civilians in America.

As many as four military lawyers are available 24 hours a day for commanders to consult before they give the order to shoot anyone. These lawyers are called judge advocate generals and they must undergo special training in the Geneva conventions in Charlottesville, Virginia, before they deploy. The military lawyers are required to make sure that an operation – including the kind of weapons to be used and the risk of civilian casualties

PLUS, these wars/attacks are against terrorists hiding with civilians /etc
How lawyers sign off on drone attacks | Pratap Chatterjee

Who decides they're terrorists? Oh, wait, the US does.

So, get this, this is your narrative.

The US says this group is a terrorist group. The terrorist group says the US is a terrorist group. The terrorist group attacks the US, oh, they're bad. The US attacks the said terrorist group, they're good.

How?

very stupid shit
plain and simple--the US does not target innocent civilians as policy
don't try the stupid double talk/twisting crap

No one said that, you twit.

 

[harmonica]

no--the Geneva Convention/UN/etc make the laws
it is not US policy to attack innocent civilians
..there have been and always will be lone wolves/mistakes/etc
but it is not US policy
terrorist DIRECTLY target innocent civilians, as a policy--this is UNDENIABLE
the US does not as a policy

Ah, the UN, which the US will work to control.......

It's all how global politics works, China is working towards the aim of controlling enough countries that it can do whatever it likes and the UN will never condemn them.

Doesn't make it right. Doesn't make invading Iraq better than bombing some civilians in America.

As many as four military lawyers are available 24 hours a day for commanders to consult before they give the order to shoot anyone. These lawyers are called judge advocate generals and they must undergo special training in the Geneva conventions in Charlottesville, Virginia, before they deploy. The military lawyers are required to make sure that an operation – including the kind of weapons to be used and the risk of civilian casualties

PLUS, these wars/attacks are against terrorists hiding with civilians /etc
How lawyers sign off on drone attacks | Pratap Chatterjee

Who decides they're terrorists? Oh, wait, the US does.

So, get this, this is your narrative.

The US says this group is a terrorist group. The terrorist group says the US is a terrorist group. The terrorist group attacks the US, oh, they're bad. The US attacks the said terrorist group, they're good.

How?

very stupid shit
plain and simple--the US does not target innocent civilians as policy
don't try the stupid double talk/twisting crap

No one said that, you twit.

you make so much sense
dumbass

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Ah, the UN, which the US will work to control.......

It's all how global politics works, China is working towards the aim of controlling enough countries that it can do whatever it likes and the UN will never condemn them.

Doesn't make it right. Doesn't make invading Iraq better than bombing some civilians in America.

As many as four military lawyers are available 24 hours a day for commanders to consult before they give the order to shoot anyone. These lawyers are called judge advocate generals and they must undergo special training in the Geneva conventions in Charlottesville, Virginia, before they deploy. The military lawyers are required to make sure that an operation – including the kind of weapons to be used and the risk of civilian casualties

PLUS, these wars/attacks are against terrorists hiding with civilians /etc
How lawyers sign off on drone attacks | Pratap Chatterjee

Who decides they're terrorists? Oh, wait, the US does.

So, get this, this is your narrative.

The US says this group is a terrorist group. The terrorist group says the US is a terrorist group. The terrorist group attacks the US, oh, they're bad. The US attacks the said terrorist group, they're good.

How?

very stupid shit
plain and simple--the US does not target innocent civilians as policy
don't try the stupid double talk/twisting crap

No one said that, you twit.

you make so much sense
dumbass

And you never make sense, you winger nitwit.

 

[rightwinger]

Ah, the UN, which the US will work to control.......

It's all how global politics works, China is working towards the aim of controlling enough countries that it can do whatever it likes and the UN will never condemn them.

Doesn't make it right. Doesn't make invading Iraq better than bombing some civilians in America.

As many as four military lawyers are available 24 hours a day for commanders to consult before they give the order to shoot anyone. These lawyers are called judge advocate generals and they must undergo special training in the Geneva conventions in Charlottesville, Virginia, before they deploy. The military lawyers are required to make sure that an operation – including the kind of weapons to be used and the risk of civilian casualties

PLUS, these wars/attacks are against terrorists hiding with civilians /etc
How lawyers sign off on drone attacks | Pratap Chatterjee

Who decides they're terrorists? Oh, wait, the US does.

So, get this, this is your narrative.

The US says this group is a terrorist group. The terrorist group says the US is a terrorist group. The terrorist group attacks the US, oh, they're bad. The US attacks the said terrorist group, they're good.

How?

very stupid shit
plain and simple--the US does not target innocent civilians as policy
don't try the stupid double talk/twisting crap

Tell that to the people of Hiroshima

that was legal/lawful/etc as many cities were bombed
AND--they were not surrendering
they still didn't want to surrender AFTER the A--bombs destroyed their cities
AND in the end more people were saved by the Abombs
you're point is worthless
Operation Downfall: How America Would Have Invaded Japan (It Would Have Been Hell)

Hiroshima had little military value. It was an attack on civilians.

Justify it if you wish. But you can’t claim the US does not target innocent civilians

 

[harmonica]

PLUS, these wars/attacks are against terrorists hiding with civilians /etc
How lawyers sign off on drone attacks | Pratap Chatterjee

Who decides they're terrorists? Oh, wait, the US does.

So, get this, this is your narrative.

The US says this group is a terrorist group. The terrorist group says the US is a terrorist group. The terrorist group attacks the US, oh, they're bad. The US attacks the said terrorist group, they're good.

How?

very stupid shit
plain and simple--the US does not target innocent civilians as policy
don't try the stupid double talk/twisting crap

Tell that to the people of Hiroshima

that was legal/lawful/etc as many cities were bombed
AND--they were not surrendering
they still didn't want to surrender AFTER the A--bombs destroyed their cities
AND in the end more people were saved by the Abombs
you're point is worthless
Operation Downfall: How America Would Have Invaded Japan (It Would Have Been Hell)

Hiroshima had little military value. It was an attack on civilians.

Justify it if you wish. But you can’t claim the US does not target innocent civilians

all the major powers bombed the cities
yours is more stupid shit

 

[rightwinger]

Who decides they're terrorists? Oh, wait, the US does.

So, get this, this is your narrative.

The US says this group is a terrorist group. The terrorist group says the US is a terrorist group. The terrorist group attacks the US, oh, they're bad. The US attacks the said terrorist group, they're good.

How?

very stupid shit
plain and simple--the US does not target innocent civilians as policy
don't try the stupid double talk/twisting crap

Tell that to the people of Hiroshima

that was legal/lawful/etc as many cities were bombed
AND--they were not surrendering
they still didn't want to surrender AFTER the A--bombs destroyed their cities
AND in the end more people were saved by the Abombs
you're point is worthless
Operation Downfall: How America Would Have Invaded Japan (It Would Have Been Hell)

Hiroshima had little military value. It was an attack on civilians.

Justify it if you wish. But you can’t claim the US does not target innocent civilians

all the major powers bombed the cities
yours is more stupid shit

You are dodging the issue

The claim was the US does not target innocent civilians

 

[harmonica]

PLUS, these wars/attacks are against terrorists hiding with civilians /etc
How lawyers sign off on drone attacks | Pratap Chatterjee

Who decides they're terrorists? Oh, wait, the US does.

So, get this, this is your narrative.

The US says this group is a terrorist group. The terrorist group says the US is a terrorist group. The terrorist group attacks the US, oh, they're bad. The US attacks the said terrorist group, they're good.

How?

very stupid shit
plain and simple--the US does not target innocent civilians as policy
don't try the stupid double talk/twisting crap

Tell that to the people of Hiroshima

that was legal/lawful/etc as many cities were bombed
AND--they were not surrendering
they still didn't want to surrender AFTER the A--bombs destroyed their cities
AND in the end more people were saved by the Abombs
you're point is worthless
Operation Downfall: How America Would Have Invaded Japan (It Would Have Been Hell)

Hiroshima had little military value. It was an attack on civilians.

Justify it if you wish. But you can’t claim the US does not target innocent civilians

again--they killed less than if they had to invade
they did it to END the war!!!!!!
etc etc

 

[harmonica]

very stupid shit
plain and simple--the US does not target innocent civilians as policy
don't try the stupid double talk/twisting crap

Tell that to the people of Hiroshima

that was legal/lawful/etc as many cities were bombed
AND--they were not surrendering
they still didn't want to surrender AFTER the A--bombs destroyed their cities
AND in the end more people were saved by the Abombs
you're point is worthless
Operation Downfall: How America Would Have Invaded Japan (It Would Have Been Hell)

Hiroshima had little military value. It was an attack on civilians.

Justify it if you wish. But you can’t claim the US does not target innocent civilians

all the major powers bombed the cities
yours is more stupid shit

You are dodging the issue

The claim was the US does not target innocent civilians

per policy
WW2 they bombed the cities
no dodging--you are talking crap
no comparison at all to terrorists

 

[DOTR]

 

[Muhammed]

ter·ror·ism
/ˈterəˌrizəm/
noun

1. the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
   "the figh

Ah, "unlawful", and the US makes the laws......

It's like murder v. execution
Opium v. morphine

Words that have different meanings depending on which direction you're looking at it from.

no--the Geneva Convention/UN/etc make the laws
it is not US policy to attack innocent civilians
..there have been and always will be lone wolves/mistakes/etc
but it is not US policy
terrorist DIRECTLY target innocent civilians, as a policy--this is UNDENIABLE
the US does not as a policy

Ah, the UN, which the US will work to control.......

It's all how global politics works, China is working towards the aim of controlling enough countries that it can do whatever it likes and the UN will never condemn them.

Doesn't make it right. Doesn't make invading Iraq better than bombing some civilians in America.

please prove YOUR claim that it's the US policy to directly target innocent civilians
in fact, the US goes out of their way to not hit civilians

Huh? Why is targeting "innocent civilians" an issue here?

"the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians,"

It doesn't say "targeting innocent civilians" here, does it. Or correct me, did my eyes just give the fuck up. What I read is "unlawful use of violence and intimidation".

Are you saying that the invasion of Iraq did not involve "violence"? By invading Iraq the US managed to get upwards of 1 million people killed through blatant stupidity on the part of Bremer and Bush.

Disbanding the Iraqi Armed Forces and Police was one of the most criminal acts ever seen in that country. It led to so many problems.

So you'd say "they didn't target innocent civilians", well, they did. Just not necessarily in the traditional manner you're trying to make this.

No, let's try this. A voter is a person who gets to decide how the government works. Is a voter "innocent" of the crimes of the country? Are US citizens "innocent" of the crimes of invading the country? They elected Bush, they supported the war, they supported those whose policies against Middle Eastern oil rich countries has caused so much friction which led to 9/11.

The only way they're innocent is if you ignore everything.

The invasion of Iraq by the coalition of UN member states was not unlawful, jackass.

 

[rightwinger]

Who decides they're terrorists? Oh, wait, the US does.

So, get this, this is your narrative.

The US says this group is a terrorist group. The terrorist group says the US is a terrorist group. The terrorist group attacks the US, oh, they're bad. The US attacks the said terrorist group, they're good.

How?

very stupid shit
plain and simple--the US does not target innocent civilians as policy
don't try the stupid double talk/twisting crap

Tell that to the people of Hiroshima

that was legal/lawful/etc as many cities were bombed
AND--they were not surrendering
they still didn't want to surrender AFTER the A--bombs destroyed their cities
AND in the end more people were saved by the Abombs
you're point is worthless
Operation Downfall: How America Would Have Invaded Japan (It Would Have Been Hell)

Hiroshima had little military value. It was an attack on civilians.

Justify it if you wish. But you can’t claim the US does not target innocent civilians

again--they killed less than if they had to invade
they did it to END the war!!!!!!
etc etc

You are changing the subject

You claimed the US does not attack innocent civilians
Now you claim it is justified