Military Targets vs innocent civilian targets

#1
:evil: :evil: The terrorist definition of a "military target" is:
"Anyone who dons the uniform of the enemy powers" Gerry Adams MP 1986.
This could be a builder who works on an army base, a fruitierer or butcher who supplies food to garrisons, a driver who takes children of soldiers to school. All theses are examples of the callous disregard that a terrorist holds towards human life.
When I hear and read of religious leaders referring to "innocent civilian" lives, It makes me wonder what overall message they are trying to get through.
:evil:
 
#3
Jeez Buscuits AB. Chill. This isnt you at all. The evil idiots are only a tiny, tiny proportion of the Muslim community. Target them and them alone. Am I part of some weak underbelly? Are you someone who has suddenly come to believe in the Blair vision? Don't be gulled into reacting in the way the terrorists want you to behave. Garrison towns was for PIRA. These guys want to kill anyone, numbers are the name of the game because they have realised that terror needs everyone to be scared, black, white, whatever, that it might be them next. They have hit as many muslims as non-muslims, they dont care. We need to stick together, the stupid civil war ideas on the other thread just play into their hands.
 
#4
Biscuits_AB said:
'Innocent Civilians'?

Politicians are 'civilians' and it's them who start wars. Are they classed as 'innocent' civilians?

We're all fair game to terrorists. Hitting 'innocent civilians' is one of their main objectives. Doing so, creates a divide in public opinion. The part which sways in favour of allowing leeway to the 'minority' behind the terrorism is the weak underbelly. It is full of cowards who think only of themselves and their personal survival. So much so, they'd sell the country down the drain just as long as they are left in peace, which is a very misguided belief.

This country is full of cowards, apologists and appeasers. They'd be happy for Garrison towns to be obliterated in terrorist attacks as they don't have to live on them, as it doesn't affect them as they don't generally house many 'innocent civilians'.

It's Sunday morning and I hate all civvies. Bring back National Service, with an upper age limit of 60. There won't be any 'innocent civilians' then.
you keep this up fella i like your style.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads