Zucas on 16 November 2009
Well I do agree with that sentiment. It really is an "act of war" but still an "act of terror". But the reason they refrain from mentioning the first is because that is insinuating that war isn't one sided with "good" and "bad". Media loves to play off those themes with civilians, "their side" and rogues affected as good with the opponents being inherently bad.
This isntance would insinuate that this isn't the case at all and then all would not be well. What people need to start understanding is war is hell and there is no good side and there is no bad side. There are only those who suffer and get destroyed and those who are hidden from it. The war is taking a toll on many on both sides.
