I think people make the mistake of believing that it is simple to discern innocent lives being 'targeted' and 'collateral damage'

When we 'accidentally' blow up an area with civilians, that doesnt take the pain from those that love them and they may not BELIEVE it was accidental merely because we said it was

so innocent life lost, whether it is explained as accidental, collateral damage, or targeted,,, still invokes in humans and nations a response to react in kind (accident or not)

that is why, one mans terrorist,, applies to most attacks around the world(regardless of affiliation)

someone feels wronged, or threatened, and they react in kind,, to drive home their point,,,or to intimidate others into submission from 'wronging' them any further,,,

Nonsense. Targeted is intentional. Untargeted is accidental.
There is a clear distinction and it makes a difference.

There is a qualitative difference between someone dying in a
tragic automobile accident and someone who is killed by a
bus bomb or killed by hijackers flying a plane into an office
tower.

The person who dies in the accident is just as dead and their
family mourns but they were not murdered for the sake of some
religious or political agenda. Same thing goes for military
accidents. There is evidence of intention. Often the terrorists
openly claim their intention for the sake of publicizing their
cause. But there is always evidence of intent and it is not a
matter of debate - it is a matter of public record and crime.
In the case of terrorism, war crime.

no, targeted and untargeted are not clearly distinguished. Except in cases where someone actually claims to have targeted others, and even there sometimes are people trying to 'take credit' for what they havent done.

Nations engage in 'warfare' that isnt always on the up and up, and I belive that is true of EVERY nation including our own

I think we support nations who have engaged in such warfare and sometimes people fight back


much the way we vowed that anyone harboring terrorists would be prime enemy number one,, The american government has had its own occasions where they not only harbor but backup, support, and finance someone elses 'enemy'. So why would they be anymore terroristic to wage war against those supporting the ones who take innocent lives in their own lands.

ITs a vicious circle. I doubt it will stop. I dont think people deserve to die, I think America tries its best but falls short many times, and does things that are 'terroristic' upon others.

How is there always evidence of intent?

For instance, if there breaks out on the playground a brawl, and as one person is attacking me I see someone close by that I dont like and punch them....How can it be PROVEN I was intending to harm them as opposed to them just being in the wrong place at the wrong time?

there is not always evidence of intent. People can lie about intentional actions being accidents and so can governments.

i'm not msharmony. yes, our views are based on what we read so reading correctly what we can on a topic is paramount. either you have not read 1973 or you've misread what you call 'the un charter' as my question was in reply to this statement of yours:

"Under the UN Charter, no country is allowed to carry out acts of aggression against another sovereign nation or interfere in its domestic affairs."

we can agree that a loss of innocent civilians through collateral damage was indeed unfortumate but it does not explain the conflict with your statement and 1973 which authorized military intervention in lybia? that was my question.

This is just silly.

Give you an example. Intentional killing of innocent civilians is
when the terrorists hijacked the planes on 911. They took over the
planes and planned to ram them into office buildings at the atart
of the work day. Their intent could not be clearer. There is all
kinds of evidence. Video of the hijackers at the airports. Messages
from the victims and of course the physical wreckage. This is
evidence of intent.

Now for accidental. Israeli's have to fire on a group of terrorists
who are trying to launch a missile into one of their border towns.
The intent of the terrorists is crystal clear. They are setting up
the launcher and have several missiles ready to set into position.
The Israelis must act to protect their citizens from imminent
attack so they aim their own weapons on the terrorists and their
missiles and launcher. Using locals as human shields, the terrorists
have set up their launcher only 50 yards from a set of houses and
after the Israelis begin firing at the launch site a Palestinian
in Gaza unaware of the imminent attack returns home from work
and gets struck by shrapnel when the unlaunched missiles blow
up under attack. His death is accidental. He was NOT targeted and
was not intended to be hurt at all but was killed because the
real terrorists did not care whether he or his family were put
in harms way by their attempts to target other innocent Israeli
civilians. The responsibility for his death rests solely on the
Palestinian terrorists who chose the location and timing and
forced the Israelis to defend themselves.

That in a nutshell is the difference between targeted and
accidental deaths in terrorist situations. There is no confusion
about who is targeting innocent civilians and no difficulty in
determining who is accidentally killed. All situations can be
divided like this. The dividing line is whether or not innocent
civilians are targeted for killing. Simple as that.

Targeting innocent civilians on purpose with deadly weapons is
always wrong.

I agree with the last sentence. I just dont agree that INTENTIONS are always as clearly distinguishable as in 9/11. And I Believe the eye for an eye, life for a life mentality, that many hold (including americans who continue to support death penalty) often motivates said 'terrorists', But they arent always so easy to point to because some have the resources and money for cover ups and staged 'apologies' or claims of 'it was an accident'.

jrbogie, as you must have noticed the first part of that statement was not meant for you.Am not able to make too many quotes because I have to make do with a small writing window. What I tried to point out to you is that the res1973 did not authorise killing of innocents and that it is biased and unfair if another res is not passed in respect of Syria or if Obama is not asked to step down as a result of protests on wall street or Cameron as a result of UK riots. In which case that res1973 would be illegal.

back to the op

there is nothing NEW about terrorism, ask the native americans

so Id say it isnt the NEW anything...

its just terrorism,,,,

As regards your previous posts I would say that a man intends the natural consequences of his actions or else he would try to escape responsibility by denying his intention. Also I think "collateral damage" may be a term coined out of convenience and not a defence in law. An excuse to justify 'terroristic' acts.

Im not following what a 'natural' consequence is

IF I drive a car while texting, do I intend to cause an accident or if I deny that was my intention , is that proof that I didnt intend to?

Likewise, IF A government blows up a civilian area, did they INTEND to kill civilians , or if they DENY that was their intetion does that prove they didnt intend to?

I think people take ACCEPTABLE losses of life when its not someone they love, they just rarely ADMIT that it was accepted or CALL it 'intentional'

as in war, or drunk driving accidents,,,etc,,

but your statement that i replied to mentioned nothing about killing innocent civilians. your statement simply stated that under un charter no nation may interfere in the affairs of another nation. you're statement is simply dead wrong. the un has authorized the use of military force to intervene in the affairs of several nations. of course res 1973 did not authorize targeting innocent civilians. no resolution ever has. under what jurisdiction could res 1973 or any other un resolution be found to be illegal? and what wording in the resolution do you find to be legally suspect?

If someone texts while driving they are just taking unnecessary
and very dangerous risks. They are not trying to kill themselves
or others.

If someone takes a bomb on an airplane and blows it up then they
are trying to kill people.

See my example above about the Palestinians launching rockets
from civilian areas. When the Israelis respond and try to stop
the rocket launching terrorists, they frequently succeed without
harming any civilians but the choice of the rocket launching
terrorist to locate their bases in civilian areas is intentional
and causes innocent people to be put in harms way.

The Palestinian terrorists cause other innocent Palestinians to
be in a dangerous situation and if any innocent civilians are
injured or killed then it is the fault of those who are trying
to launch the rockets at Israeli border towns and not the Israelis
who are forced to try to stop them to protect themselves.

your religious practices are actually pagan rituals in disguise

satanism is the new religion

everything you know is wrong

you are under strong delusion


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgwMr_gdiv8&feature=related

I honestly dont know how we as AMEricans feel we have any CLUE as to what is happening in Palestine or Israel

my heart goes out to all the innocents in the crossfire, and I dont see either side as strictly 'innocent' or strictly 'guilty' when it comes to what is probably KNOWING and PURPOSEFUL killing of civilians,,,

Then you are simply sticking your head in the sand. There is a
guilty party in the situation I stated and it is those who are
launching missiles on purpose at innocent civilians - trying to
kill innocent civilians - it is those who are locating their
missiles and launchers next to someones house without their
knowledge or consent. It is the 911 hijackers who savagely tortured
and killed the passengers, crews and office workers.

This is one way Americans can understand what is happening in the
Mideast - through the Islamic terrorist attacks on us on 911.

Turn a blind eye to terrorism if you like but I will always
point out the difference between terrorism and self-defense.

Terrorism is defined by purposefully trying to kill innocent people
like the Palestinians in the Gaza missile launchings and like
the 911 hijackers. Innocent civilians like someone returning home
from work or firefighters in the WTC towers caught in the crossfire
are simply more victims of the terrorists as defined above.

It does not matter if you are Australian, Japanese, American or
Navaho. We all can appreciate and abhor the misanthropy of
terrorism. And fight against terrorism and the horrible truth of it.

you dont even know who the terrorists are

theres always fighting and wars

theres always the goods guys and the bad guys

and vise versa both sides are blamed

the innocent civilians always get killed

its the name of the game population control

and the ones who think there fighting for a good cause

they both lose and the rich make money

were already free we dont need anyone to fight for our freedom

the other side believes the same lies you do

there fighting for freedom from us

you have to get everyone on the same field

you fall for it every time

your under strong delusion

but will never wake up

they have you by your balls and you dont even know it

Yep, everyone believes they are fighting an oppressor of their freedoms or an evil. Only the rich controllers who fund false flag operations to get us into wars know the truth. And they don't even believe they are evil. They are fighting for a new world order where they can live in peace and wealth and safety and luxury and they are just ridding the earth of inferior people and over population.

Armies are just their toys and soldiers are just pawns in the game. What is the military except some guy you don't know ordering you to wack some other guy you don't know?

I have no way of sticking my head in the sand of Israel and Palestine because I am not there, all I can depend upon is what MEDIA chooses to share, just like any other person who doesnt LIVE there

I have heard accounts , that the media rarely shares, from others in Palestine who have a different story to tell, and I have no reason to automatically discount their stories anymore than I do the other sides

I feel there is, most likely, truth in what BOTH Sides say about the other,, and I feel for the civilians caught in the middle of the fight over who the 'real' terrorists are while they continue dying for the cause,,,

Stories are stories. Facts are facts. Thousands of missiles
launched from Gaza directed at towns, schools, shopping centers.
Bus bombs. Flying planes into the WTC. These are facts not
speculation. The media reports are readily verifiable and the
carnage and deaths are real.

If you cannot tell the difference between stories and facts, if
you cannot distinguish between verifiable reports from a free
and open press and reports that are generated solely under the
authorship of a state controlled media then you already have your
head in the sand.

The overwhelming source of terrorism in the Mideast is perpetrated
by radical Islamic terrorists like Hamas, Hezbollah, Al-Quaida,
Al-Aqsa and Fatah. Israel does not target innocent civilians as
a matter of policy whereas the Palestinian and radical Islamists
do target innocent civilians as a matter of policy.

It is extremely easy to verify the media reports.

If you put terrorist narrative lies on the same footing as reports
from the free press which can actually be verified then you are
only deluding yourself.

I only point it out as a matter of fact.