Spellbound454
Senior Member
"In the end, we remember not the words of our enemies but the silence of our friends"
Joined: Sept 9, 2011 17:28:42 GMT -5
Posts: 3,990
|
Post by Spellbound454 on Jun 1, 2017 18:13:28 GMT -5
Got to take my hat off to this young lady The benefit concert is going ahead on Sunday and has pulled in some big names :- Coldplay, Black Eyed Peas, Robbie Williams, Little Mix, Take That, Katy Perry, Miley Cyrus and Justin Bieber and the money raised will be going to the victims. Good on her...she could have just sloped off and she didn't do that.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Jun 1, 2017 23:03:23 GMT -5
As Spellbound pointed out, the line between "civilian" and "insurgent" is pretty nebulous. Remember we're dealing with a organization that doesn't have a formal uniformed army and who isn't bound by the Geneva Conventions. These insurgents will often fade in and out of combatant status.
In addition, they often use women and children as human shields, which guarantees they'll be casualties. It's unfortunate, but this is the reality of war.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,521
|
Post by billisonboard on Jun 1, 2017 23:15:42 GMT -5
... It's unfortunate but this is the reality of war. So why aren't the deaths in Manchester simply an unfortunate reality of this war that is currently being waged?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 21, 2024 13:39:49 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2017 23:41:28 GMT -5
... It's unfortunate but this is the reality of war. So why aren't the deaths in Manchester simply an unfortunate reality of this war that is currently being waged? Because our generals and soldiers and armies and leaders aren't hiding behind little girls at a concert, or in hospitals, or in religious buildings. That's the difference. Our various Militaries and leaders are: "You want to attack us, here we are, out in the open, we'll tell you our coordinates on the map, come to us... just leave the innocent civilians alone". Military bases and government buildings aren't exactly difficult to find.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,521
|
Post by billisonboard on Jun 1, 2017 23:53:07 GMT -5
So why aren't the deaths in Manchester simply an unfortunate reality of this war that is currently being waged? Because our generals and soldiers and armies and leaders aren't hiding behind little girls at a concert, or in hospitals, or in religious buildings. That's the difference. Our various Militaries and leaders are: "You want to attack us, here we are, out in the open, we'll tell you our coordinates on the map, come to us... just leave the innocent civilians alone". Military bases and government buildings aren't exactly difficult to find. No they aren't. They are behind advanced technology which isn't available to the people we are fighting. So those we are fighting are using a strategy which increases, in their opinion, their chances of winning the war.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 21, 2024 13:39:49 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2017 0:33:47 GMT -5
Because our generals and soldiers and armies and leaders aren't hiding behind little girls at a concert, or in hospitals, or in religious buildings. That's the difference. Our various Militaries and leaders are: "You want to attack us, here we are, out in the open, we'll tell you our coordinates on the map, come to us... just leave the innocent civilians alone". Military bases and government buildings aren't exactly difficult to find. No they aren't. They are behind advanced technology which isn't available to the people we are fighting. So those we are fighting are using a strategy which increases, in their opinion, their chances of winning the war. They have a flawed strategy then.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 21, 2024 13:39:49 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2017 3:49:26 GMT -5
That's what the British said...
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,521
|
Post by billisonboard on Jun 2, 2017 8:48:43 GMT -5
That's what the British said... There is that. I was also thinking about what was the situation with the Viet Cong.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jun 2, 2017 11:56:28 GMT -5
So why aren't the deaths in Manchester simply an unfortunate reality of this war that is currently being waged? Because our generals and soldiers and armies and leaders aren't hiding behind little girls at a concert, or in hospitals, or in religious buildings. That's the difference. Our various Militaries and leaders are: "You want to attack us, here we are, out in the open, we'll tell you our coordinates on the map, come to us... just leave the innocent civilians alone". Military bases and government buildings aren't exactly difficult to find. You seem to be under the impression that the terrorists are sitting right on top of civilians in hospitals, schools, religious buildings. In some cases they are. When a city block is blown apart, a hospital is going to treat people as people. They're not going to run an FBI background check on every dying man rushed through their door to filter out militants. Should civilians being treated in hospitals pay the price for this? Likewise for mosques. I know you don't attend religious services, but imagine you and your family are attending a political rally for your preferred candidate, a missile drops out of the sky, killing you all, because enemy intel indicated several terrorists would likely be in attendance. The enemy'd be damned if massacring your family was going to stop them from eliminating those likely targets. This is more acceptable than bombing a concert? And these are the cases when terrorists are actually killed. How many cases have we seen where civilians' only crime is being a few blocks away from a factory or blown-out building where terrorists have taken refuge, and a strike is off-target? I was reading a few days ago that our friends the Saudis have been caught on a number of occasions setting up armed perimeters around towns being pounded by US missiles and massacring anybody that tries to flee. (I thought I'd bookmarked the article but I can't find it. If you don't believe me, I'll dig it up again.) Hundreds dead, and who knows if there's a single terrorist among them? This is not a sane or justifiable response to terrorism. This is a military campaign out of control.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 21, 2024 13:39:49 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2017 20:58:53 GMT -5
Because our generals and soldiers and armies and leaders aren't hiding behind little girls at a concert, or in hospitals, or in religious buildings. That's the difference. Our various Militaries and leaders are: "You want to attack us, here we are, out in the open, we'll tell you our coordinates on the map, come to us... just leave the innocent civilians alone". Military bases and government buildings aren't exactly difficult to find. You seem to be under the impression that the terrorists are sitting right on top of civilians in hospitals, schools, religious buildings.In some cases they are. When a city block is blown apart, a hospital is going to treat people as people. They're not going to run an FBI background check on every dying man rushed through their door to filter out militants. Should civilians being treated in hospitals pay the price for this? Likewise for mosques. I know you don't attend religious services, but imagine you and your family are attending a political rally for your preferred candidate, a missile drops out of the sky, killing you all, because enemy intel indicated several terrorists would likely be in attendance. The enemy'd be damned if massacring your family was going to stop them from eliminating those likely targets. This is more acceptable than bombing a concert? And these are the cases when terrorists are actually killed. How many cases have we seen where civilians' only crime is being a few blocks away from a factory or blown-out building where terrorists have taken refuge, and a strike is off-target? I was reading a few days ago that our friends the Saudis have been caught on a number of occasions setting up armed perimeters around towns being pounded by US missiles and massacring anybody that tries to flee. (I thought I'd bookmarked the article but I can't find it. If you don't believe me, I'll dig it up again.) Hundreds dead, and who knows if there's a single terrorist among them? This is not a sane or justifiable response to terrorism. This is a military campaign out of control.First bolded: Nope. I am of the actual knowledge that they use them as meeting places and "safe houses". Second bolded: I agree... it's out of OUR control... and completely in theirs. When they stop being terrorists (and any that have committed atrocities surrender), we'll stop fighting them.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jun 3, 2017 7:02:39 GMT -5
When they stop being terrorists (and any that have committed atrocities surrender), we'll stop fighting them. "They" aren't terrorists. "They" are plebs like you and I, hoeing spuds, selling carpets, teaching music lessons, who happen to have terrorists living among them or in close proximity to them. As for when the violence stops: how likely do you suppose it is that the terrorists will surrender, especially to an enemy who's committed worse atrocities than they have? You're trying to justify murder in this thread.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Jun 3, 2017 15:23:39 GMT -5
From Yahoo! News (bold by me): Beirut (AFP) - US-led air strikes on Syria killed a total of 225 civilians over the past month, a monitor said on Tuesday, the highest 30-day toll since the campaign began in 2014.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the civilian dead between April 23 and May 23 included 44 children and 36 women.
The US-led air campaign against the Islamic State jihadist group in Syria began on September 23, 2014.
"The past month of operations is the highest civilian toll since the coalition began bombing Syria," Observatory head Rami Abdel Rahman told AFP.
"There has been a very big escalation."
The previous deadliest 30-day period was between February 23 and March 23 this year, when 220 civilians were killed, Abdel Rahman said. In its war against one enemy state, the US and UK governments--possibly your governments--have killed 225 innocent civilians in the past month alone, equivalent to 10 Manchester bombings in one month. A greater discussion on how the war in which we're now engaged was a predictable (and indeed, predicted) consequence of US foreign policy dating back to 2003 is viewable here. We call ISIS agents "cowards"--cruel, inhuman, devoid of all decency, murderers of children. Given the acts of our respective states and our near-total indifference to the suffering of our enemies, why on Earth should they take us seriously? Ten Manchester bombings a month on your dime, with your permission, with nary a tear shed. This is what you're carrying on your back when you spot a would-be ISIS terrorist and go up to talk to him. What do you say to him? How do you convince him you deserve to live?Your children and innocents would quit being collateral damage if you'd quit hiding in towns and cities and religious places and hospitals... and if you'd quit committing terrorism. None of our attacks TARGET the innocent. Terrorist attacks, on the other hand, usually ONLY AND EXCLUSIVELY target the innocent. Terrorist attacks rarely target only and exclusively the innocent...because "innocent" is completely subjective. It's easy to say targeting only children or targeting only self-proclaimed military leaders is cut-and-dry. It's far less objective when you say "ok, these people contribute to a system which we think is the problem".
The answer to most of this (and to most things involving killing anyone) is "when the people I support do it, they are heroes, when the people I oppose do it they are horrendous cowards". That's typical. At best it becomes "when people I support do it, it was an unfortunate consequence". I mean, that's really true with almost any conflict...whether it involves direct killing or not. Look at how we view other countries "invading" countries we support...then look at how we view invading countries ourselves (usually more concern about the money we're spending to do it than moral qualms).
There's a saying. "Everyone is the hero of their own story". Almost nobody actually views themselves as evil. People view themselves as doing the "right" thing...and they justify what they do. Very few people on either side of a conflict are sitting in rooms cackling about all the evil things they know are evil but that they're going to do anyways. People do what they think is right in either the short or long term...those things just conflict with everyone else in the world also doing what they think is the right thing.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Jun 3, 2017 15:32:16 GMT -5
So why aren't the deaths in Manchester simply an unfortunate reality of this war that is currently being waged? Because our generals and soldiers and armies and leaders aren't hiding behind little girls at a concert, or in hospitals, or in religious buildings. That's the difference. Our various Militaries and leaders are: "You want to attack us, here we are, out in the open, we'll tell you our coordinates on the map, come to us... just leave the innocent civilians alone". Military bases and government buildings aren't exactly difficult to find. The side in a conflict that has the greater military strength will pretty much always say this. Why wouldn't they? This position is essentially "Hey, you should fight us in a way that makes sure you'll lose....ok? And if you don't, then you're morally lacking". Hell, we wouldn't be a country here in the USA if we actually held to this belief. We weren't just openly marching across vast fields at the British.
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on Jun 3, 2017 15:35:39 GMT -5
There is a difference between trying to target terrorists and accidentally killing a few civilians and directly targeting civilians with no military targets for miles. To claim otherwise is like saying someone whose car slips on ice and kills someone is the same as someone who deliberately ran his car into a crowd of people.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jun 3, 2017 15:37:30 GMT -5
When they stop being terrorists (and any that have committed atrocities surrender), we'll stop fighting them. "They" aren't terrorists. "They" are plebs like you and I, hoeing spuds, selling carpets, teaching music lessons, who happen to have terrorists living among them or in close proximity to them. As for when the violence stops: how likely do you suppose it is that the terrorists will surrender, especially to an enemy who's committed worse atrocities than they have? You're trying to justify murder in this thread. Stoning women....... Butchering their daughters in honour killings...... It's civilians doing this.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Jun 3, 2017 15:42:22 GMT -5
There is a difference between trying to target terrorists and accidentally killing a few civilians and directly targeting civilians with no military targets for miles. To claim otherwise is like saying someone whose car slips on ice and kills someone is the same as someone who deliberately ran his car into a crowd of people. It's not the same at all. In one instance in your example, the person was trying to kill people...in the other they were not. We're talking about people who are all intentionally TRYING to kill people. It's also not an issue of "accidentally" killing civilians...it's understanding that you're going to kill civilians...and just being ok with it as long as it supports your goals.
In your car example, it's actually the difference between driving your car into a crowd of people in order to kill one person and understanding you're going to kill a bunch of others...and just driving your car into a crowd of people understanding you're going to kill a bunch of people and not caring which specific person it is. Are you more ok with things like the Boston Marathon bombings if you find out the terrorist specifically wanted to make sure they got one person who was running and just happened to get a bunch of others?
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on Jun 3, 2017 15:50:02 GMT -5
Because our generals and soldiers and armies and leaders aren't hiding behind little girls at a concert, or in hospitals, or in religious buildings. That's the difference. Our various Militaries and leaders are: "You want to attack us, here we are, out in the open, we'll tell you our coordinates on the map, come to us... just leave the innocent civilians alone". Military bases and government buildings aren't exactly difficult to find. The side in a conflict that has the greater military strength will pretty much always say this. Why wouldn't they? This position is essentially "Hey, you should fight us in a way that makes sure you'll lose....ok? And if you don't, then you're morally lacking". Hell, we wouldn't be a country here in the USA if we actually held to this belief. We weren't just openly marching across vast fields at the British.
They may have hidden behind a few trees and rocks, but they generally didn't make a habit of hiding behind women and children or choosing to have major battles in densely populated cities. I don't remember hearing stories of revolutionary war combatants on either side planting bombs in schools, churches or hospitals. Some mortars may have accidentally fallen on a hospital, but they weren't deliberately targeted. For the most part, civilians were allowed to go about their business unharmed. The same can't be said in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, or Pakistan. And as much as we bellyache about our casualties, they're nothing compared to the number of muslims that are killed by terrorists. And if we sit back and do nothing, many more will die. Sitting back and doing nothing about Isis in Syria hasn't exactly made it safe place.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Jun 3, 2017 16:01:28 GMT -5
The side in a conflict that has the greater military strength will pretty much always say this. Why wouldn't they? This position is essentially "Hey, you should fight us in a way that makes sure you'll lose....ok? And if you don't, then you're morally lacking". Hell, we wouldn't be a country here in the USA if we actually held to this belief. We weren't just openly marching across vast fields at the British.
They may have hidden behind a few trees and rocks, but they generally didn't make a habit of hiding behind women and children or choosing to have major battles in densely populated cities. I don't remember hearing stories of revolutionary war combatants on either side planting bombs in schools, churches or hospitals. Some mortars may have accidentally fallen on a hospital, but they weren't deliberately targeted. For the most part, civilians were allowed to go about their business unharmed. The same can't be said in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, or Pakistan. And as much as we bellyache about our casualties, they're nothing compared to the number of muslims that are killed by terrorists. And if we sit back and do nothing, many more will die. Sitting back and doing nothing about Isis in Syria hasn't exactly made it safe place. The same can't be said in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, or Pakistan because WE are going over there and initiating these things. There are no "major battles in densely populated cities"...because we just bomb the cities.
Were civilians allowed to go about their business unharmed when we dropped atomic bombs on Japan? You want to define "target" and "enemy" in whatever way your side sees it. The enemy doesn't see "enemy" as being a military person...they view it as someone who supports what they view to be an "evil society".
Personally, I'm not even bothered by bombing away on civilians if it helps our own country's agenda...I just think people should understand what's going on rather than burying their heads in the sand so that they can claim to be somehow more moral than their enemies. It's not the bombings or killing of civilians I'm necessarily opposed to...it's the ignorance of the people thinking it's somehow different than what those same people we're bombing are doing.
If I have to choose between letting everyone live and paying $10/gallon for gas...or killing a bunch of civilians halfway around the world for $2/gallon for gas...then sorry they're going to die. I'm just self-aware enough to understand the choice rather than pretend it's for some higher moral purpose.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,521
|
Post by billisonboard on Jun 3, 2017 16:08:07 GMT -5
The side in a conflict that has the greater military strength will pretty much always say this. Why wouldn't they? This position is essentially "Hey, you should fight us in a way that makes sure you'll lose....ok? And if you don't, then you're morally lacking". Hell, we wouldn't be a country here in the USA if we actually held to this belief. We weren't just openly marching across vast fields at the British.
They may have hidden behind a few trees and rocks, but they generally didn't make a habit of hiding behind women and children or choosing to have major battles in densely populated cities. I don't remember hearing stories of revolutionary war combatants on either side planting bombs in schools, churches or hospitals. Some mortars may have accidentally fallen on a hospital, but they weren't deliberately targeted. For the most part, civilians were allowed to go about their business unharmed. The same can't be said in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, or Pakistan. And as much as we bellyache about our casualties, they're nothing compared to the number of muslims that are killed by terrorists. And if we sit back and do nothing, many more will die. Sitting back and doing nothing about Isis in Syria hasn't exactly made it safe place. Warfare has certainly changed over the years. There was the day that one had to sight in on a specific human being to kill them. Certainly made it easier to only target other combatants. Through many steps we got it to where one plane could drop one bomb on one civilian populated city, then another civilian populated city to force unconditional surrender. When one side in a war has the tools to do the emotionally detached damage that can be done with modern technology, it is no wonder the other side works to destroy that advantage.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,521
|
Post by billisonboard on Jun 3, 2017 16:11:28 GMT -5
They may have hidden behind a few trees and rocks, but they generally didn't make a habit of hiding behind women and children or choosing to have major battles in densely populated cities. I don't remember hearing stories of revolutionary war combatants on either side planting bombs in schools, churches or hospitals. Some mortars may have accidentally fallen on a hospital, but they weren't deliberately targeted. For the most part, civilians were allowed to go about their business unharmed. The same can't be said in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, or Pakistan. And as much as we bellyache about our casualties, they're nothing compared to the number of muslims that are killed by terrorists. And if we sit back and do nothing, many more will die. Sitting back and doing nothing about Isis in Syria hasn't exactly made it safe place. The same can't be said in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, or Pakistan because WE are going over there and initiating these things. There are no "major battles in densely populated cities"...because we just bomb the cities.
Were civilians allowed to go about their business unharmed when we dropped atomic bombs on Japan? You want to define "target" and "enemy" in whatever way your side sees it. The enemy doesn't see "enemy" as being a military person...they view it as someone who supports what they view to be an "evil society".
Personally, I'm not even bothered by bombing away on civilians if it helps our own country's agenda...I just think people should understand what's going on rather than burying their heads in the sand so that they can claim to be somehow more moral than their enemies. It's not the bombings or killing of civilians I'm necessarily opposed to...it's the ignorance of the people thinking it's somehow different than what those same people we're bombing are doing.
If I have to choose between letting everyone live and paying $10/gallon for gas...or killing a bunch of civilians halfway around the world for $2/gallon for gas...then sorry they're going to die. I'm just self-aware enough to understand the choice rather than pretend it's for some higher moral purpose.
Now that is a whole heap of brutal honesty.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jun 3, 2017 17:19:48 GMT -5
"They" aren't terrorists. "They" are plebs like you and I, hoeing spuds, selling carpets, teaching music lessons, who happen to have terrorists living among them or in close proximity to them. As for when the violence stops: how likely do you suppose it is that the terrorists will surrender, especially to an enemy who's committed worse atrocities than they have? You're trying to justify murder in this thread. Stoning women....... Butchering their daughters in honour killings...... It's civilians doing this. So let's butcher them first and that'll make them stop? I happen to agree there comes a point when a society becomes so evil that it needs to be completely wiped out, but the bar for this kind of judgment is extremely high. "They practice Sharia law" doesn't cut it. Moreover, I hold no delusions: what we're talking about is genocide. As fundamentalist as doctrines get. You sure you want to go on record supporting it?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jun 3, 2017 17:22:03 GMT -5
The same can't be said in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, or Pakistan because WE are going over there and initiating these things. There are no "major battles in densely populated cities"...because we just bomb the cities.
Were civilians allowed to go about their business unharmed when we dropped atomic bombs on Japan? You want to define "target" and "enemy" in whatever way your side sees it. The enemy doesn't see "enemy" as being a military person...they view it as someone who supports what they view to be an "evil society".
Personally, I'm not even bothered by bombing away on civilians if it helps our own country's agenda...I just think people should understand what's going on rather than burying their heads in the sand so that they can claim to be somehow more moral than their enemies. It's not the bombings or killing of civilians I'm necessarily opposed to...it's the ignorance of the people thinking it's somehow different than what those same people we're bombing are doing.
If I have to choose between letting everyone live and paying $10/gallon for gas...or killing a bunch of civilians halfway around the world for $2/gallon for gas...then sorry they're going to die. I'm just self-aware enough to understand the choice rather than pretend it's for some higher moral purpose.
Now that is a whole heap of brutal honesty. You're not kiddin'. But... the man's eyes are open, I'll give him that.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 21, 2024 13:39:49 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2017 19:00:15 GMT -5
Look up women in Iran in the 1970s before we started wrecking havok.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jun 3, 2017 19:17:38 GMT -5
Stoning women....... Butchering their daughters in honour killings...... It's civilians doing this. So let's butcher them first and that'll make them stop? I happen to agree there comes a point when a society becomes so evil that it needs to be completely wiped out, but the bar for this kind of judgment is extremely high. "They practice Sharia law" doesn't cut it. Moreover, I hold no delusions: what we're talking about is genocide. As fundamentalist as doctrines get. You sure you want to go on record supporting it? All I'm saying is that these civilians aren't a whole lot better than the terrorists in many respects.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 21, 2024 13:39:49 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2017 20:34:46 GMT -5
When they stop being terrorists (and any that have committed atrocities surrender), we'll stop fighting them. "They" aren't terrorists. "They" are plebs like you and I, hoeing spuds, selling carpets, teaching music lessons, who happen to have terrorists living among them or in close proximity to them. As for when the violence stops: how likely do you suppose it is that the terrorists will surrender, especially to an enemy who's committed worse atrocities than they have?You're trying to justify murder in this thread. First bolded: The ones I was referring to are. I was talking about the terrorists that are responsible for putting innocents in harm's way. Second bolded: I'm not suggesting that they surrender to anyone that's committed worse atrocities. I'm suggesting they surrender to us. That you put us on a level BEYOND them in atrocity says a lot about you Virgil Showlion... none of it good.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 21, 2024 13:39:49 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2017 20:40:16 GMT -5
There is a difference between trying to target terrorists and accidentally killing a few civilians and directly targeting civilians with no military targets for miles. To claim otherwise is like saying someone whose car slips on ice and kills someone is the same as someone who deliberately ran his car into a crowd of people. It's not the same at all. In one instance in your example, the person was trying to kill people...in the other they were not. We're talking about people who are all intentionally TRYING to kill people. It's also not an issue of "accidentally" killing civilians...it's understanding that you're going to kill civilians...and just being ok with it as long as it supports your goals.
In your car example, it's actually the difference between driving your car into a crowd of people in order to kill one person and understanding you're going to kill a bunch of others...and just driving your car into a crowd of people understanding you're going to kill a bunch of people and not caring which specific person it is. Are you more ok with things like the Boston Marathon bombings if you find out the terrorist specifically wanted to make sure they got one person who was running and just happened to get a bunch of others?
To be honest, it depends... was that "one person", that they wanted to get, someone that would otherwise have caused the deaths of hundreds or maybe thousands (like... oh... I dunno... TERRORISTS!) if they didn't get them... or was it just a specific innocent bystander that they didn't like the color/cut of their hair?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 21, 2024 13:39:49 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2017 20:45:01 GMT -5
Stoning women....... Butchering their daughters in honour killings...... It's civilians doing this. So let's butcher them first and that'll make them stop? I happen to agree there comes a point when a society becomes so evil that it needs to be completely wiped out, but the bar for this kind of judgment is extremely high. "They practice Sharia law" doesn't cut it. Moreover, I hold no delusions: what we're talking about is genocide. As fundamentalist as doctrines get. You sure you want to go on record supporting it? Ill "go on record" supporting the elimination of ALL religions. Not the people... just the unprovable, conflicting, and conflict creating beliefs. More death has been caused by "My God is more real than your God" than any other single cause in history.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Jun 3, 2017 21:03:09 GMT -5
This has nothing to do with God or allah. It's just an excuse. I don't think they even believe the bs about virgins either.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jun 3, 2017 21:47:24 GMT -5
That you put us on a level BEYOND them in atrocity says a lot about you Virgil Showlion ... none of it good. Why wouldn't I? Our side slaughters more innocents in a month than they do in a decade.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 21, 2024 13:39:49 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2017 22:50:13 GMT -5
That you put us on a level BEYOND them in atrocity says a lot about you Virgil Showlion ... none of it good. Why wouldn't I? Our side slaughters more innocents in a month than they do in a decade. You and I have different ideas on how to count apparently. I'm out. If you are going to journey into fantasyland with terrorists, I can't follow you.
|
|