Bombing used in a sentence

Bombing in a sentence as a noun

What I won't do is make the bombing the primary memory of the race. Sorry, bombers, you're not taking that away.

Think about how the NSA helped stop all the killings and maimings at the boston bombing. Oh wait, they didn't - from two super stupid criminals not even trying to hide what they were planning.

> For all you know this bombing was because they don't believe women should run in marathons. Or maybe their entire family was killed as collateral damage in an american drone strike in Yemen.

This wasn't a normal bombing run. It had elements of an experiment - they wanted to understand how the bomb worked, so they wanted to control the drop precisely and be able to observe the effects.

The same argument can be made about drone warfare: it's not the shooting/bombing from above that is disturbing, it's that it can be performed at almost zero risk. The same argument we saw in communications surveillance.

But come on, how many of you thought bombing Syria was a good idea to begin with? How many were entirely unaware of the US government's terrible record of following international law?

On the day of the bombing, they were reporting that the bomber had already been arrested. The day after the bombing, they had a picture on their cover of a backpack that was supposedly the bomb... except it wasn't. Today, they had a picture of two middle eastern looking people, who had nothing to do with the bombing.

We went from crapflooding and email bombing each other to him constantly phoning and writing everybody I knew or worked for and my school in an attempt to screw me over through the years. Every girlfriend I had he tried to fake pics of me 'cheating' on her and spammed their social accounts and email/phone.

And that is indirectly accomplished by indiscriminately bombing civilians. Everyone who is involved in picking the target and knows it is a funeral, will know civilians will die.

Can you imagine working at the WTC and having a bad day, and jokingly sending an email to a coworker about bombing the place because you're so mad. 9/11 happens a year later, the government looks in its archives for the email you sent, and in a post-9/11 frenzy sends you to Guantanamo to "await trial".

It was only decades after Jutland that naval aircraft and aircraft carriers became fast and advanced enough to make the aerial bombing and torpedoing of enemy vessels a real possibility. These days missiles are the great equalisers.

Air power played a prominent role in WW1, with aerial duels frequently making headlines and German airplanes bombing London [1]. Furthermore, in the inter-war period British society was obsessed with the seemingly unstoppable power of flight [2], a concern well substantiated by the Spanish Civil War [3].

Almost the entire piece does nothing but cite facts, such as: the dropping of the nuclear bombs does not figure significantly in historical records of the Japanese leadership's discussion about surrender; the Japanese war council decided on August 8 not even to discuss the Hiroshima bombing; damage to Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not out of scale with the earlier fire-bombings of other cities; Japanese leaders had expressed a willingness to sacrifice their cities if necessary; Japan's war strategy was predicated on the Soviets staying neutral; and so on. Are these wrong?