> > I'm getting tired of that double-talk to justify a gigantic pooch-screw. First it > went for being very accurate and avoiding civilian areas to deliberately targeting > civilian buildings. And you don't see that as you contradict yourself? >
umm... nope. Don't see the contradiction. Still less collateral damage than any war in the past. If a civilian building was completely destroyed, it was probably the target. How is that not defined as accuracy?