From: Adam Flinton 

Geo. wrote:

> "Robert Comer"  wrote in message
> news:40d7c1ba{at}w3.nls.net...
>
>>>I don't understand why they didn't send the army in instead of
bombing it?
>>
>>That certainly is the $64 question...
>
>
> sure sounds like one of those time sensitive intel things to me. Question is
> who did they think was there?
>
& in what way did that justify the "collateral damage". If you know
innocents will be killed then is it a premeditated killing? e.g. if a
terror group targets an embassy with an explosive device, could they claim
that as they hadn't targeted any single person, that all the resulting dead
& injured could be simply dismissed as "collateral damage"?

Adam

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