USS Cole was "terrorism," but our deaths in Iraq are not?

[texasleo]

How does that make any sense?

[NewJeffCT]

1. You were expecting logic from the Right?

Even questioning their rationale is tantamount to treason. Remember, Democrats that undermine the president's credibility do so at their own peril.

[RC]

2. Our Deaths? How about "Shock and Awe"?

The deaths of over 130,000 Iraqis? Now that is ongoing terrorism.

[Disturbed]

3. An attack on a Military target is not terrorism.

The RWing label any attack as "terror".

[texasleo]

4. I agree with that.

[radwriter0555]

5. How is the Iraqi defense of their nation to be construed as terrorism?

I'd like to understand that irrational line of thought, if you would be so kind...

The US military is in Iraq destroying their homes, raping their children, killing their fathers and sons and mothers and daughters. The US military was not invited there by any legitimate government.

Technically that makes the USA the terrorists.

And under every circumstance the Iraqis have the inherent right to defende their nation from all foreign interests.

[pampango]

7. Attacking US troops in Iraq is not terrorism, but

attacks against civilians are. I don't care if it is Israel attacking Lebanese civilians, Hezbollah attacking Israeli civilians, the US attacking Iraqi civilians, or the Iraqi resistance killing fellow Iraqis (assuming that Sunni and Shia consider each other as "fellow" Iraqis.) Each of these can provide you with a "good reason" why they are compelled to attack civilians. And most of us, freepers too for that matter, will believe one side or the other and rationalize that that side is justified in its civilian attacks (they are only responding, the other guy did it first, if we don't do it first the other side will, they don't follow rules why should we, it's the only effective tactic we have, etc, etc, etc.)

[FearofFutility]

6. Correct me if I'm wrong

Didn't we invade Iraq?