NationStates Jolt Archive

Was watching one of those supposedly "classic movies" yesterday when the true nature of the storyline dawned upon me.

It's a romanticized story about two damn civillians, foreign fighters not even in their own country, who decide to load up a vehicle with explosives and drive it, in a suicide mission, into a clearly marked Geneva-compliant military vehicle of their enemy.

Clearly an illegal insurgent act that promotes the notion that such blatant acts of terrorism are perfectly acceptable to the American public.

And yet, we're supposed to feel bad for them when their enemies catch them and go to hang them.


The movie, of course, is The African Queen. A great flick that still gets widely played to the acclaim of the audience.

Bogie and Hepburn - Fecking terrorists!!!

Wonder how well received at the theater would be a romanticized story of a couple of arabs who take it upon themselves to bomb, oh - say - the USS Cole? Give it a nice happy ending with them swimming into the sunset while the Cole burns in the background?

Anyone think they could even get it played in the theatre?

I don't think they could get it past their lawyers, let alone into a theatre.

I would imagine to the average American, skin tone, religion and choice of target determine whether one is a terrorist or romanticized freedom fighter. Choice of target being of course, anything goes so long as they don't get to see the blood, dismembered limbs and other assorted gore.

Muslim terrorists only attack the West because we're "infidels." They're just religious psychos who should be given the Mata Hari treatment.

it could be made in turkey.


i love the african queen. houston did such a good job at keeping to the book. not perfectly, but extremely much better than most hollywood movies did at that time.

they werent really terrorists because they attacked a military vessel. terrorists attack civilian targets with the aim of getting their way through making the populace too afraid to defy them. but they were justly being hanged. you cant try to blow up a military vessel and be let go just because you are the stars of the movie.

they werent really terrorists because they attacked a military vessel.

I remember some people here making noise about how the attack of the USS Cole and that barracks with US marines in it were terrorist attacks despite them being military targets. Then turning around and saying news agencies that showed the US in unfavorable light like say, Al Jazeera, were legitimate targets.

Muslim terrorists only attack the West because we're "infidels." They're just religious psychos who should be given the Mata Hari treatment.

The what treatment?

The what treatment?

If I remember correctly, it would be falling in love with the enemy, being forced to choose between that and your job and ending up committing suicide in some dramatic fashion.

Very difficult to pull off I imagine if you're trying to set events up to happen that way.

The what treatment?

...

They should be shot.

If I remember correctly, it would be falling in love with the enemy, being forced to choose between that and your job and ending up committing suicide in some dramatic fashion.

You remember wrong.

...

They should be shot.

I think I prefer Non Aligned States version.

Although your statement does leave some room for interpretation. Shot with what? A gun? An arrow? ...some kind of positive interpretation that I am currently unable to concieve of?

I think I prefer Non Aligned States version.

Although your statement does leave some room for interpretation. Shot with what? A gun? An arrow?

A firing squad.

A firing squad.

May I ask why Muslim terrorists--or indeed, any terrorists--deserve such treatment rather than fair trials and subsequent life imprisonment? Why impliment the death penalty when it actually performs none of the services it claims to do so and only makes us look as barbaric as the terrorists themselves? If we are to fight terrorism, we must do so without stooping to their level, or else we've got no real ground from which to fight.

A firing squad.

Wait, you're shooting someone with a firing squad? Couldn't you just use a gun, instead of the needlessly complicated arrangements to fire several individuals, probably nonfatally?

I remember some people here making noise about how the attack of the USS Cole and that barracks with US marines in it were terrorist attacks despite them being military targets. Then turning around and saying news agencies that showed the US in unfavorable light like say, Al Jazeera, were legitimate targets.

yes but they are wrong

terrorism is civilian agaisnt civilian for the reasons stated above.

although one might argue that the attack on the cole was BY terrorists, its not a terrorist act. same with any attack on a military target.

that doesnt make it OK it just isnt the right definition.

I am one not to believe in death penalty, but if they are about to blow up stuff, i would kill them on the spot. If we captured them, i would lock them in a cell to rot.

Yes a terrorist is one that attacks civilians. If they attack a military target, they are still an enemy. Either way they are not good. I could care less if they are Muslem, Christian or athiest. Once you attack a civilian, you are a terrorist to me. And if they are not a citizen of this nation(USA), they dont deserve a US citizen rights of legal action. They should just rot in a cell.

I am one not to believe in death penalty, but if they are about to blow up stuff, i would kill them on the spot. If we captured them, i would lock them in a cell to rot.

Yes a terrorist is one that attacks civilians. If they attack a military target, they are still an enemy. Either way they are not good. I could care less if they are Muslem, Christian or athiest. Once you attack a civilian, you are a terrorist to me. And if they are not a citizen of this nation(USA), they dont deserve a US citizen rights of legal action. They should just rot in a cell.
You kinda have to prove that they actually attacked the civilians first, hence the requirement for legal action...

I am one not to believe in death penalty, but if they are about to blow up stuff, i would kill them on the spot. If we captured them, i would lock them in a cell to rot.

Yes a terrorist is one that attacks civilians. If they attack a military target, they are still an enemy. Either way they are not good. I could care less if they are Muslem, Christian or athiest. Once you attack a civilian, you are a terrorist to me. And if they are not a citizen of this nation(USA), they dont deserve a US citizen rights of legal action. They should just rot in a cell.


Only Americans have rights!

And if they are not a citizen of this nation(USA), they dont deserve a US citizen rights of legal action. They should just rot in a cell.

No. Those are human rights, not United States citizen rights. Once again, if we do not uphold ourselves to these standards, we are no better than they are, and they have truly won.

I would imagine to the average American, skin tone, religion and choice of target determine whether one is a terrorist or romanticized freedom fighter.
Really? Are you American too? Are they all rednecks as many of us Europeans think?

I remember some people here making noise about how the attack of the USS Cole and that barracks with US marines in it were terrorist attacks despite them being military targets.
Well, neither was terrorism.

No. Those are human rights, not United States citizen rights. Once again, if we do not uphold ourselves to these standards, we are no better than they are, and they have truly won.

No, they are American rights to get a lawyer, well if they attack AMericans they shouldnt get lawyers....if they attack GB or someone else, then let them handle them then.

Sorry, you dont get rights in my mind if you attack innocents of a nation and are not citizens of that nation.

Only Americans have rights!

Nice mocking...


No, only Americans get rights of legal action if they break a crime or murder someone. THose of non-citizen dont get any if they harm us or break our laws.

You kinda have to prove that they actually attacked the civilians first, hence the requirement for legal action...

No, you dont. Even then, our government HAS shown it, many times to the public, it would be suicide if a government doesnt. And our government has so this notion of making a trial to "show" the evidence is bull....then again they dont deserve "American" legal rights, since they are NOT American.

No, they are American rights to get a lawyer, well if they attack AMericans they shouldnt get lawyers....if they attack GB or someone else, then let them handle them then.

Sorry, you dont get rights in my mind if you attack innocents of a nation and are not citizens of that nation.
Whether they may be legally recognized as basic human rights or not, they are basic human rights, and all should be given them. We should treat all criminals--yes, even terrorists--as human beings. Why? Because we show that we truly are, from a moral standpoint, better than they are. If we drop to their level to punish them, what are we proving? Aren't we just giving in to fear, and to hate, essentially what they want us to do? By acting like them, by giving in to such irrationality, we become them, and they win. Do not allow them to win. Do not strip people of their basic human rights. That is what terrorists do. And we are not terrorists.

Only Americans have rights!

... and the rest of the world.

Only Americans have rights![IMG]
...

... and the rest of the world.

Well, you drive a hard bargain. I suppose that, as America is after all dedicated to spreading democracy, we could give Europe some rights. How's that?

[IMG]
...

What makes America so special? Why do we Americans deserve civil rights that others do not? Conversly, why do they not deserve such rights when we do?

What makes America so special? Why do we Americans deserve civil rights that others do not? Conversly, why do they not deserve such rights when we do?

Strength determines morality.

Kinda. I mean, it's not a matter so much of deserves, as it is, can enforce.

What makes America so special? Why do we Americans deserve civil rights that others do not? Conversly, why do they not deserve such rights when we do?

There is a difference between American legal rights and "civil rights", sorry. We can be "civil" to them and give them food, shelter, and water. But anything else, they dont deserve, since they think they can take from others. Its not a matter of being "fair", its what it is. They are NOT American, so they dont get the same rights of legal action....sorry, what i think.

There is a difference between American legal rights and "civil rights", sorry. We can be "civil" to them and give them food, shelter, and water. But anything else, they dont deserve, since they think they can take from others. Its not a matter of being "fair", its what it is. They are NOT American, so they dont get the same rights of legal action....sorry, what i think.

So... not being shot on sight for 'crimes' you might possibly have committed is an American legal right.

There is a difference between American legal rights and "civil rights", sorry.

Procedural due process

We can be "civil" to them and give them food, shelter, and water.

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

But anything else, they dont deserve, since they think they can take from others. Its not a matter of being "fair", its what it is. They are NOT American, so they dont get the same rights of legal action....sorry, what i think.

OK...think it, that's your right to think whatever damned fool idea you want to. The supreme court disagrees...

I remember in one of the Rodger Moore Bond movies, Bond and his girl holed up with a bunch of afghani terrorists... but that was okay, cause they were fighting the commies, of course!

See, the problem is you're forgetting this little gem:

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

See the problem there? It doesn't say "any american". It doesn't say "any citizen".

It says any person. It doesn't matter who.

...

How many times must I repeat my message of stooping to their level before you understand? Or do you not care, so long as the "evil inhuman terrorists" are punished for whatever deeds you might deem them to have done?

Really? Are you American too? Are they all rednecks as many of us Europeans think?

A combination of factors led to my deduction actually (not rednecks, but rather how things are viewed), although I will freely admit that it is not as solid as I would like. For one, there is the media, and subsequent sociological impacts on the general public. I hope you will not dispute it too much when I say that television, particularly in news media and movies, tend to influence the perceptions and expectations of the viewers.

Of course, coupled with already existing societal standards, it becomes further enforced into the mentality. Something of a self reinforcing system really. The society expects the following, thereby media is shaped in a way to be accepted among the society, further reinforcing their expectations.

No, only Americans get rights of legal action if they break a crime or murder someone. THose of non-citizen dont get any if they harm us or break our laws.

Thereby, you shouldn't complain or ask for extradition when American citizens abroad commit crimes no? Including soldiers stationed in foreign countries of course.

After all, why should they have a right to legal recourse in a country not theirs if your demands were to be followed through? It's only fair after all.

For example, if Joe was to have been found guilty of a crime in say, Singapore, like drug smuggling, he should not have any rights to a lawyer or due process. Instead, it would be the immediate death penalty for him. Which Singapore already does have for drug smuggling, but thats besides the point.

Of course, it shouldn't matter that Joe might be a congress critter or whatever passes as a position of prominence and importance at the time.

See, the problem is you're forgetting this little gem:



See the problem there? It doesn't say "any american". It doesn't say "any citizen".

It says any person. It doesn't matter who.

Um, you are not looking at it correctly. Look at it again my friend. Also you left out other parts around it in the Constitution, nice. Sorry but our laws are created for those who live here under the guise of citizenship. Why else would we have the legal procedures of having citizenship...hmmm i wonder. :rolleyes:

Thereby, you shouldn't complain or ask for extradition when American citizens abroad commit crimes no? Including soldiers stationed in foreign countries of course.

Sure, if they can get that person from us, eh? I say let them try. But i am all for that, if you break a law there then they should be punished. However, i would say it would be sticky on what you mean by American soldier, i think you are just trying to pull a fast one on the soldier issue. What crimes do you mean? Be more specific please.

After all, why should they have a right to legal recourse in a country not theirs if your demands were to be followed through? It's only fair after all.

Agreed, but do you think the government is going to let that always happen? I think not, and too bad.

For example, if Joe was to have been found guilty of a crime in say, Singapore, like drug smuggling, he should not have any rights to a lawyer or due process. Instead, it would be the immediate death penalty for him. Which Singapore already does have for drug smuggling, but thats besides the point.

No thatis a good point. But can you agree that if the nation that the "guilty" came from decides that the other nation is in the wrong we can go in and take him back? Its only fair. What youa re saying it is right for a group within a nationt o take its grievences out on other nations like the al Qaeda group did on the USA. Which in turns leaves the US to attack the group and the nation harboring them. Its one big cicle, would you agree??

Of course, it shouldn't matter that Joe might be a congress critter or whatever passes as a position of prominence and importance at the time.

So other nations can get away with this, but the US cant? I see hypocricy in this....

I should point out that the German boat in The African Queen was a gun boat, not a civilian, medical, or non-combat vessel.

No thatis a good point. But can you agree that if the nation that the "guilty" came from decides that the other nation is in the wrong we can go in and take him back? Its only fair.

Yeah, we all know that's good for foreign policy. :rolleyes:

I should point out that the German boat in The African Queen was a gun boat, not a civilian, medical, or non-combat vessel.

Which technically makes it a legitimate target in wartime (which, I believe was the case in the movie).

The USS Cole, while a military target, was in port during peacetime activities.

First of all, this was in the context of World War I. Britain and Germany were formally at war.

Secondly, I imagine that their plan involved jumping off at the last minute.

They're just religious psychos who should be given the Mata Hari treatment.

They should be 'laid' to death by a sexy dancer?

There is a difference between American legal rights and "civil rights", sorry. We can be "civil" to them and give them food, shelter, and water. But anything else, they dont deserve, since they think they can take from others. Its not a matter of being "fair", its what it is. They are NOT American, so they dont get the same rights of legal action....sorry, what i think.

Ah yes, only "Americans" have any valid sort of legal rights. :rolleyes:

Perhaps someone should tell that to your Supreme Court this little nugget of information as clearly they have their heads up their robes with regard to the post-911 rulings in such cases as Rasul vs. Bush (No. 03-334)/Al Odah v. United States (No. 03-343), or - of course - Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld.

But what the f*ck do THEY know about the law.... right?

But hey, using your half-baked premise as a basis for legal interpretation, the corolary is that Iraqi police should be permitted to sumarily shoot Blackwater employees or any other armed contractors in Iraq on the spot. They are, after all, non-Iraqi civilians operating extrajudicially within their sovereign territories and so are not to be extended any due process under Iraqi laws.

That IS what you mean right?

Wait, you're shooting someone with a firing squad? Couldn't you just use a gun, instead of the needlessly complicated arrangements to fire several individuals, probably nonfatally?

"Probably non-fatally?" Maybe if you're Martin Sheen. Normal people tend to die quickly from several bullet wounds to the chest..

I remember some people here making noise about how the attack of the USS Cole and that barracks with US marines in it were terrorist attacks despite them being military targets. Then turning around and saying news agencies that showed the US in unfavorable light like say, Al Jazeera, were legitimate targets.

So jihaddis attacking American military is perfectly acceptable?




Negative. Had on 9/11 only the Pentagon been attacked I still think we'd be at war, for good reason.

yes but they are wrong

terrorism is civilian agaisnt civilian for the reasons stated above.

although one might argue that the attack on the cole was BY terrorists, its not a terrorist act. same with any attack on a military target.

that doesnt make it OK it just isnt the right definition.

What? So only about 40% of IRA fatalities can be classed as terrorism? What do you label the other 60% that they racked up against the security forces?

"Probably non-fatally?" Maybe if you're Martin Sheen. Normal people tend to die quickly from several bullet wounds to the chest..

People cause bullet wounds now?

People cause bullet wounds now?

No, but there are several instances of Karl Rove causing internal hemohragging.

Was watching one of those supposedly "classic movies" yesterday when the true nature of the storyline dawned upon me.

It's a romanticized story about two damn civillians, foreign fighters not even in their own country, who decide to load up a vehicle with explosives and drive it, in a suicide mission, into a clearly marked Geneva-compliant military vehicle of their enemy.

Clearly an illegal insurgent act that promotes the notion that such blatant acts of terrorism are perfectly acceptable to the American public.

And yet, we're supposed to feel bad for them when their enemies catch them and go to hang them.


The movie, of course, is The African Queen. A great flick that still gets widely played to the acclaim of the audience.

Bogie and Hepburn - Fecking terrorists!!!

Wonder how well received at the theater would be a romanticized story of a couple of arabs who take it upon themselves to bomb, oh - say - the USS Cole? Give it a nice happy ending with them swimming into the sunset while the Cole burns in the background?

Anyone think they could even get it played in the theatre?

The US media is filled with enemy propaganda and the sad thing is our government "for the people and of the people" can't even protect them from hostile forigners' lies....

People cause bullet wounds now?

Kinda tough to get one without human involvement.

Either way, being shot at by a firing squad generally causes you to die. ;)

Kinda tough to get one without human involvement.

Either way, being shot at by a firing squad generally causes you to die. ;)

The joke is the someone suggested terrorists be shot with a firing squad, not by one.

The joke is the someone suggested terrorists be shot with a firing squad, not by one.

Ah, okay. I was responding more to the "probably fatal" bit from earlier.

I remember in one of the Rodger Moore Bond movies, Bond and his girl holed up with a bunch of afghani terrorists... but that was okay, cause they were fighting the commies, of course!


Actually it was a Timothy Dalton / Bond movie not Roger Moore.

Ah yes, only "Americans" have any valid sort of legal rights. :rolleyes:

Nice smart ass remark....:rolleyes:
You know as well as i do what i mean. When you become a US citizen you recieve certain legal rights YOU only get, or are you that dumb?

Perhaps someone should tell that to your Supreme Court this little nugget of information as clearly they have their heads up their robes with regard to the post-911 rulings in such cases as Rasul vs. Bush (No. 03-334)/Al Odah v. United States (No. 03-343), or - of course - Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld.

But what the f*ck do THEY know about the law.... right?

Riiiight.....

But hey, using your half-baked premise as a basis for legal interpretation, the corolary is that Iraqi police should be permitted to sumarily shoot Blackwater employees or any other armed contractors in Iraq on the spot. They are, after all, non-Iraqi civilians operating extrajudicially within their sovereign territories and so are not to be extended any due process under Iraqi laws.

That IS what you mean right?

I sure hope your not an American citizen, because quite frankly you dont deserve it.... You are comparing apples to bananas, and trying humor(bad at it too)to make your point. I stated my logic behind our legal system, you are just to blind to see that. EVERYONE gets CIVIL HUMAN RIGHTS, but they dont ALL get the same USA legal rights if you are NOT a citizen. Learn the legal aspect of this nation....

So jihaddis attacking American military is perfectly acceptable?
Quite a bit more than hitting American (or Iraqi) civilians, I should think.

after reading as much of this thread as i could i still don't really know where people stand but i think that any person who commits himself to acts of terrorism and believes that their sole purpose in life is to cause the death of innocents dosen't deserve to be given the same treatment as other crime offenders, (eg. breaking and entering, theft, ect...). If i saw a terrorist about to blow something up, i would shot him on spot if that means that i have given another a chance to live. I value any other human life over that of a terrorist'. In my oppinion, they don't deserve the same treatment as everybody else because you can try and be "civil" about the whole thing and say, "They deserve fair trial, their people too". No they don't, they forfeited their human rights as soon as they saw fit to take away someone elses. Terrorist and anybody else who thinks that it is acceptable to take away another human life deserves no compassion.

Once you attack a civilian, you are a terrorist to me.

Wouldn't that mean that our military is a terrorist organization then?

after reading as much of this thread as i could i still don't really know where people stand but i think that any person who commits himself to acts of terrorism and believes that their sole purpose in life is to cause the death of innocents dosen't deserve to be given the same treatment as other crime offenders, (eg. breaking and entering, theft, ect...). If i saw a terrorist about to blow something up, i would shot him on spot if that means that i have given another a chance to live. I value any other human life over that of a terrorist'. In my oppinion, they don't deserve the same treatment as everybody else because you can try and be "civil" about the whole thing and say, "They deserve fair trial, their people too". No they don't, they forfeited their human rights as soon as they saw fit to take away someone elses. Terrorist and anybody else who thinks that it is acceptable to take away another human life deserves no compassion.

Sorry, basic human rights don't have any prerequisites for getting them or conditions for keeping them apart from being human. No matter how viscious their attacks, terrorists should still get a fair trial. If only so we can remind ourselves that we are more civilised than them.

Wouldn't that mean that our military is a terrorist organization then?

And wouldn't any crime not carried out agaisnt the military count as terrorism under that definition too?

Sorry, basic human rights don't have any prerequisites for getting them or conditions for keeping them apart from being human. No matter how viscious their attacks, terrorists should still get a fair trial. If only so we can remind ourselves that we are more civilised than them.

Again im sorry to say that actual human rights don't really exist. Who gives these rights to us? We do, they simply exist because the we say they do. We say what wrong, what acceptable, and how people should act. So in my logic, if we create these "human rights" we should just as easily be able to take them away. The thing that i have realized is that, every right that we say we have, only exist because we say it does. in the beginning, nobody was born with "rights" they simply developed as our nation and the world became more self conscience and more conscience of our own morality.

Wouldn't that mean that our military is a terrorist organization then?

Excuse me? Do our troops purposely attack civilians? No. Do terrorists? Yes, that is their goal.

Excuse me? Do our troops purposely attack civilians? No.

Yes they have, Dresden and Tokyo firebombings, various carpet bombings of Germany and France, Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Operation Phoenix, Operation Flaming Dart, Operation Rolling Thunder. Also you never said "purposefully", you just said "attack". Still, Ifreann's got a point, under that definition anyone convicted of an Assault&Battery is a terrorist.

Yes they have, Dresden and Tokyo firebombings, various carpet bombings of Germany and France, Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Operation Phoenix, Operation Flaming Dart, Operation Rolling Thunder. Also you never said "purposefully", you just said "attack". Still, Ifreann's got a point, under that definition anyone convicted of an Assault&Battery is a terrorist.

No, you have it wrong, those were MILITARY targets. Once again your wrong. Our soldiers are NOT purposely attacking civilians, its not part of what they are trained for and that is not what they do. and yes assult and battery can be a form of terror for someone. What part of that dont you understand?

If I remember correctly, it would be falling in love with the enemy, being forced to choose between that and your job and ending up committing suicide in some dramatic fashion.


She didn't commit suicide. She was shot. By my great-grandfather.

Not alone, of course; as part of a firing squad. And reluctantly.

My family's one true claim to a brush with history. ;)

Was watching one of those supposedly "classic movies" yesterday when the true nature of the storyline dawned upon me.

It's a romanticized story about two damn civillians, foreign fighters not even in their own country, who decide to load up a vehicle with explosives and drive it, in a suicide mission, into a clearly marked Geneva-compliant military vehicle of their enemy.

Clearly an illegal insurgent act that promotes the notion that such blatant acts of terrorism are perfectly acceptable to the American public.

And yet, we're supposed to feel bad for them when their enemies catch them and go to hang them.


The movie, of course, is The African Queen. A great flick that still gets widely played to the acclaim of the audience.

Bogie and Hepburn - Fecking terrorists!!!

Wonder how well received at the theater would be a romanticized story of a couple of arabs who take it upon themselves to bomb, oh - say - the USS Cole? Give it a nice happy ending with them swimming into the sunset while the Cole burns in the background?

Anyone think they could even get it played in the theatre?
Yep, those type of movies piss me off. just like one from the "Happiest Place on Earth." They did a movie that glorified hackers that break into a computer system, this was in the viewpoint of being "In the computer" but still, the audiences were cheering as the hackers defeated layers of security to get to secret and private information with no reguard to data security and the privacy of any information in the system. They even altered some programs to help damage the computer system.

Pisses me off.

No, you have it wrong, those were MILITARY targets. Once again your wrong. Our soldiers are NOT purposely attacking civilians, its not part of what they are trained for and that is not what they do.

Erm... Nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki wasn't "purposely attacking civilians"?

No, you have it wrong, those were MILITARY targets. Once again your wrong. Our soldiers are NOT purposely attacking civilians, its not part of what they are trained for and that is not what they do.
They were attacking cities, with civilians in them, on purpose. Therefore they were attacking civilians purposefully.

Also, there were no military targets in My Lai, and there were no military personnel in the Filipino concentration camps. Operation Phoenix was explicitly aimed towards civilians. Operation Rolling thunder was essentially an airborne scorched earth campaign. I'm not personally attacking the US Army, I'm attacking your definition because its far too vague.

and yes assult and battery can be a form of terror for someone. What part of that dont you understand?

The part about using the military to track down and kill people suspected of throwing a punch. The part about arresting people without accusing them of a crime and incarcerating them indefinitely because they threw a beer bottle at someone.

No, you have it wrong, those were MILITARY targets.
With civilians in them. And Operation Phoenix wasn't against military targets. It was explicitly against noncombatants. And Operation Rolling Thunder... If that was against military targets, everything on Earth is a military target.

No, you have it wrong, those were MILITARY targets. Once again your wrong. Our soldiers are NOT purposely attacking civilians, its not part of what they are trained for and that is not what they do. and yes assult and battery can be a form of terror for someone. What part of that dont you understand?

Please. The term you need to familiarise yourself with is....collateral damage.