The answer is true .Also such a great book.
<em>Omakayas</em><em> </em><em>loved</em><em> </em><em>dagwaging</em><em> </em><em>(</em><em>fall</em><em>)</em><em> </em><em>season</em><em> </em><em>because</em><em> </em><em>she</em><em> </em><em>felt</em><em> </em><em>pleasant</em><em> </em><em>and</em><em> </em><em>watching</em><em> </em><em>the</em><em> </em><em>raindrops</em><em> </em><em>fall</em><em> </em><em>used</em><em> </em><em>to</em><em> </em><em>give</em><em> </em><em>her</em><em> </em><em>pleasure</em><em>.</em>
Answer:
The soldier is pointing out that:
a) It is often conflicting.
Explanation:
If people who are fighting against you open fire and kill you, we can say you were killed by enemy fire, since it was the enemy who shot. Thus, friendly fire means being killed by your friends, not by your enemy. However, <u>when the soldier says, "I don't know why they call it friendly fire if it kills you," he is paying more attention to the literal meaning of "friendly". "Friendly" can refer to people who are nice and kind. But it can also refer to something that is not harmful. If a product does not harm nature, we say it is environment-friendly. From this perspective, it does seem weird to call "friendly fire" something that is harmful, that can kill you. Thus, to this soldier, terminology used at war seems conflicting.</u>
Answer:
c .. while cassius and others have noticed ...
Explanation:
taking it