Bob, I was responding to the comment "You mean like the Americans did in Baghdad?"
These effects (killing of noncombatants in Baghdad) were secondary to the intended action (ridding the country of Saddam government). I don't believe we, (the USofA) went into Iraq with the intention of killing innocents. Sorry, but in war things get broken and people are killed (sometimes innocent people). Sorry if my message wasn't clearly stated. Kenneth Waller -----Original Message----- From: Bob Blakely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: OT OT OT -- Re: Definitions WAS Re: London Bombing update In answer to your disingenuous question Ken, yes, I've heard of it. In fact I've (unfortunately) caused it before. Now, Ken, why don't you tell us how "collateral damage" relates to the attached description of a terrorist? Remember now, it's called "collateral" for a reason - a reason beyond trite "talking points". Regards, Bob... ----------------------------------------------------------------- "The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing." - Jean-Baptiste Colbert, minister of finance to French King Louis XIV From: "Kenneth Waller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Ever hear of colateral damage? > > Kenneth Waller > > From: Kevin Waterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: OT OT OT -- Re: Definitions WAS Re: London Bombing update > > This one time, at band camp, "Bob Blakely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> The word >> "terrorist" is used to denote a person who chooses to instill terror in a >> noncombatant populous by destroying innocents such as children, students, >> and or a general population regardless of their populous. It's a function >> of >> intentions.. > > You mean like the Americans did in Bagdad? ________________________________________ PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com
