So, which is worse and why?

Question

An insurgent blowing him/herself up to get one enemy and a few innocent civilians (deplorable, I know); or a pilot bombing civilians with almost zero possibility of being shot down (Deplorable I know); or ground forces laying siege on a city with Free Fire orders (deplorable I know).

Answer 1

Huh?  They're all bad if you ask me.

Answer 2

Go smoke another Fattie.  You clearly haven't reached your true potential yet.

Answer 3

Someone who says deplorable that many times in one sentence.  Because it's annoying as h**l.

Answer 4

I think it is all disgusting, War Is Worse (period). That is why before one Super power invades a country they should make d**n sure there is just cause, which anyone with a half of a brain knew when we attacked that it was all political bullsh!t! This administration should face punishment for war crimes for sure! History will tell the truth, at least I hope!

Answer 5

well most of the people that would even have a jet fighter or a bomber would be military and they would be selected targets. might stopp more of those single insurgents that blow themselves up.

Answer 6

They are all equally deplorable.Iraq was not a preemptive war like most cons claim.  Iraq is preventive war. A preventive war is little more than unprovoked conflict, something that is both criminal under international law, and universally considered to be an immoral act. Preemptive war is about self-defense, while preventive war is the channeling of paranoia, or even worse, ulterior motives.

Answer 7

while those are all evil, I'd save the word "deplorable" for a far worse act, Justifying the ending of others lives while invoking the name of God. Those that attacked us on 9/11 did that and our president did that in response. I have no use for either of them.

Answer 8

?