I have another calculation for you. 30 dead ISIS, 2 civilian casualties- collateral damage 30 murdered civilians and 2 ISIS members- also collateral damage, because if these 2 ISIS members are not killed, they will kill later 300 civilians.
What is your point that the death of civilians is horrible? It is. My point to you is that you are being selective as to which deaths you notice. In my world and perspective, its tragic when anyone dies, yes. I don't however choose to use the number of deaths as a football score to try prove one side of a war more righteous than the other.
Then you should also accept it as collateral damage that ISIS bombed Paris and they killed a few polices together some civilian casualties.
Jeanette's friends suffering so much : )) [video=youtube;wB8lCrUzdhQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wB8lCrUzdhQ[/video]
Well it aint, there are Bosniaks in Serbia also, they cannot be Bosnians as they do not live in Bosnia. Capish?
Collateral damage refers to regular military operations and not to the terrorist attack which was in Paris.
ISIS also see itself as a state and they have soldiers and operational personnels who have attacked Paris and caused some collateral damages. Why do you call them terrorists ? They have their own cause, as all the other countries have theirs. (according to your logic)
Difference is that Bosniak is an ethnicity while "Bosnian" is a nationality since 1992. If you don't understand google Ethnicity vs Nationality. - - - Updated - - -
You compare incomparable things- chairs with tables. The main target of terrorists is civilians. The main target of an army-armed terrorists. So according to you those, who blowed up a civil airplane and made attacks are not terrorists? What the hell bull(*)(*)(*)(*) you are writing here?
Killing 30 civilian to deactivate 2 terrorist is getting out of targeting terrorists. Civilians becomes a deficit target together terrorists.
Thank you. I am a Jew originally from Russia. France during Algerian War, like USA in Korean War and Vietnam War, like USSR in Afghanistan caused very heavy civilian casualties.
When you bomb the civilians trying to kill the terrorists, you end up turning some of the civilians into terrorists, and then you have to go bomb some more civilians to kill those terrorists, but oops, you just created more terrorists who are now mad that you killed some innocent people, possibly family and friends, so now they fight and ooh look here comes more bombs on civilians which is just wonderful because that strategy has shown itself to be highly effective at....making more terrorists! The only ones who reeeeaaally win here are the folks who sell the bombs.
I haven't see the 'close footage of it' so I can't comment. If you provide a link then I will respond, as I always do.
More war crimes by Russia ? Phosphorus bombs ? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ges-footage-incendiary-dropped-civilians.html [video=youtube;48S0iGKwr3o]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48S0iGKwr3o[/video]
The Daily Mail, using the usual lazy convention these days, says the photographs haven't been confirmed -- is newspeak for "we can't be arsed to check it out because it's probably not true". It also quoted from "citizen journalists" from Raqqa - where "citizen journalist" is also newspeak for fake journalists pumping out propaganda. Personally, I'll need something a good more convincing that this to conclude this isn'y simply another case of the Daily Mail pounding the British public with sly propaganda. Even the person who put the clip on Youtube concludes this is not a phosphorus bomb. And one person comments below the Youtube clip that they had previously seen that same clip earlier in Saudi bombing in Yemen. You just can't trust the media these days and due diligence is required on almost every post. Pity.