From: Gary Britt 

There is some accuracy in what you wrote, however the facts remain that
with today's more accurate weapons countries like the USA and UK can AND DO
seek to avoid civilian casualties and the points you raise below are
irrelevant to blowing up people at a mall or a school bus full of kids
where the sole purpose of the action is not to achieve a military victory
or defeat means of production for the military but to kill civilians and
children for no purpose but to kill civilians and children.  These are the
acts of the mentally deranged who place no value on any person's life but
their own. They are living walking sociopaths without empathy for any
person except themselves.  Then compound that with their fanatical
xenophobic outlook on society and religion, and you get monkey boy and his
pig eating followers in Iran, Hamas, and any number of uneducated imam
fools scaming money off of an illiterate and enslaved population.

Gary

Ad wrote:
> Gary Britt wrote:
>> No.  Cities were military targets in that kind of all out war where
>> the USAF and RAF were defending their home countries from a war they
>> did not start. The targets were the cities themselves and the
>> infrastructure.  With Japan they dropped leaflets warning civilians to
>> leave the cities so that they would not be killed.
>>
>
> Nah mate, total war includes all civies as mil targets as they are the
> production & support system for the mil.
>
> The current "systematic warfare" doctrine is an extension of that i.e.
> "disrupt the civies" & to disrupt the mil. It's an old tactic e.g.
> forcing refugees onto the roads cripples the enemy's ability to move.
>
> Who pays for the mil?
> Where does the mil get it's food?
> etc.
>
> Take down the system ergo the name f the doctrine.
>
> The reality is that the whole "civilian target" distinction is not
> really recognized by most mils inc yours.
>
> Can attacking a "civilian target" have a "military
effect" if so then
> it's a military target.
>
> Ergo the twin towers were a mil target as they had a definite mil effect
> on "the enemy" i.e. iin this case you.
>
>
> Adam
>
>> Gary
>>
>> Adam > wrote:
>>> Gary Britt wrote:
>>>> We were defining these things in terms of the Geneva
Convention context
>>>> George and they were rebels or fighting an internal civil war.  They
>>>> fought against MILITARY targets.  Terrorists attack CIVILIAN
>>>> NON-MILITARY TARGETS.  So you and Adam are quite wrong in trying to
>>>> color every person fighting anything, anywhere, by any means, as a
>>>> terrorist.  Show me where George Washington sent people in to blow
>>>> themselves up on a school bus full of school children or
admit you are
>>>> wrong on this.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So the USAF & RAF bomber command were terrorists when they targeted
>>> Hamburg, Nagasaki etc?
>>>
>>> Adam
>>>
>>>> Gary
>>>>
>>>> Geo. wrote:
>>>>> Ok well since the US was not independent at the time
then any acts
>>>>> committed here were the same as if they were committed
in England. So
>>>>> your rebel was a terrorist as were the rest of the
founding fathers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Geo.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Gary Britt"
 wrote in message
>>>>> news:4676015c$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>>> Yes if he was part of the non-state organization
carrying out the
>>>>>> acts of war/terrorism against Portugal and working
to support more
>>>>>> such acts of war/terrorism.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gary
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Geo. wrote:
>>>>>>> "Gary Britt"
 wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:4675abb3$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>>>>> No Jefferson was a rebel in a civil war
for independence.  To be an
>>>>>>>> illegal enemy combatant he would have
needed to go to Portugal and
>>>>>>>> blow up the main square killing thousands
and declare war on
>>>>>>>> Portugal because he didn't like how
Portugal treated somebody else
>>>>>>>> in Europe.
>>>>>>> If he had, would that have also then made
Washington an illegal
>>>>>>> enemy combatant even if he had remained here?
Most of the people in
>>>>>>> gitmo were not in the US when captured.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Geo.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5