> > legitimate targets. > You realize that's against the Geneva convention and is the definition of a war crime in the US Military. You literally can be court

> > legitimate targets. > You realize that's against the Geneva convention and is the definition of a war crime in the US Military. You literally can be court martialled if you did something like that. Fwiw, I meant 'legitimate collateral targets'. As in, we don't abort a mission if it'll blow up the family of the terrorist. We'd have dropped a bomb on an enemy government office building despite it having a nursery attached. > When the Navy Seals stormed Bin Laden's home, [...] When done by bomb the standards are much lower. Also, that was a mission they knew would be examined by everyone. > Methinks you've been reading a bit too many articles and don't have enough experience on your own to create an opinion. For what it's worth, being on the ground somewhere is not one of the best ways to see the big picture. People fighting in Vietnam were often the least informed and didn't know what went on a few miles away. > What's your military background where you can say this sort of stuff with confidence? Are you saying that all the torturers at Guantanamo have been found guilty? Because otherwise I'm using the same news you have access to.