Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
The Pilots of the unarmed F-16's had to make a incredibly difficult choice. They might have to ram those jets to bring them down which would sacrifice hundreds to save potentially thousands.
The pilots of those jet liners knew that their activities would not save one single life, but murder thousands or potentially a lot more if everything had gone perfectly.
I don't see how they're the same at all.
I stand by my comparison of the terrorist to the thugs at My Lai, they knew that they had the upper hand on their passengers because they were armed at the passengers weren't.
They weren't soldiers except in their own minds.
Like I said, I don't question their committments or their beliefs, but it doesn't take a brave man to take hostages and fly into a building killing people for no good reason.
|
Killing the hostages wasn't the end game - they were collateral damage in the same way civilians that get killed in anything the west does are viewed as collateral damage.
In fact, even
you seem reluctantly okay with collateral damage as long as it's your team doing the killing:
Quote:
|
The American's went out of thier way in Iraq to reduce collateral damage to civilians. but in a war zone this does happen, mistakes and technological failures do happen. Sad but true.
|
I guess the term carries a bit more weight when North Americans become the collateral damage.