Who is worse, a bomber pilot or a terrorist?

Scroll to see replies

A friend of mine was in Iraq

Where did he serve? In what role? And when? The last British troops pulled out of close combat roles in 2007. There have been huge advances since then in close air support and interdiction tactics, particularly with drone technology married up to Hellfire missiles, with the JDAM Product Improvement Programme and greatly improved battlefield GPS locators and geospatial mapping technologies.

and he said that those photos of surgical bombing are largely propaganda

I'm afraid you are betraying your lack of knowledge. The video feeds of strikes are just that; a video feed of a strike. The characteristics of air-dropped munitions and missiles are well-known. We know as a statistical figure their CEP (circular error probable, a radius within which 50% of munitions will hit), we know how much explosive is in the warhead.

If a munition has a CEP of about 3 meters and carried a warhead of 9 kilograms, then we know with fairly high likelihood that someone standing 50 meters away will not be harmed. As I said, the performance characteristics of these weapons is well-known and in the public domain.

The bombs ensure that the target, and much of what is nearby dies.

I'm sorry but again you are betraying your confusion and ignorance. How many people die in a strike is a function of the munition's CEP and the warhead. A Hellfire missile has a 9 kilogram warhead; if that hits a car, then the only people who are going to die are the people in the car.

I know you are desperate to believe that the evil West are killing people willy nilly, but I'm afraid that is more a function of your fevered imagination than reality. Maybe you're been playing too much Call of Duty or watching unrealistic movies and you think everything happens as a giant explosion killing everyone around.

In fact, the trend is ever towards smaller and smaller warheads as they get more accurate. Most GPS-guided munitions will hit within a few meters of the target. Laser-guided munitions are accurate enough to fly through a window. The new AGM-176 only carries a 6 kilogram warhead and hits within a couple of meters of the target, as opposed to the unguidd 500 pound bombs Russia drops from 20,000 feet and wouldn't hit within a kilometre of the aimpoint.

It's clear you have an emotional need to believe that the evil Americans are rampaging around killing everyone in sight, but we really should try to stick to facts in TSR debates. The figures of 18,000 ISIL terrorists killed for about 450 civilians speaks for itself, and is precisely what you'd expect with the new generation of dual-seeker GPS+lased weapons

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 61

woIfie

Original post by TSR Mustafa

They intervened on the basis that Iraq was in possession nuclear warheads which they evidently were not.

Actually, that was not their case. They never claimed Iraq had nuclear weapons.

They then proceed to annihilate the entire nation , with at least half a million dead.

The entire nation? The entire nation is 20 million+. So which is it? Half a million or the entire nation? In any case, that's a painfully thick statement given;

(1) Those numbers have been completely discredited. It's far closer to about 200,000. The idea that more people died in Iraq from 2003-2011 than have died in the Syrian Civil War (in which 300,000 have died, and which has been far more bloody than Iraq) would be seen as clearly moronic to anyone who has something resembling intellect

(2) The vast majority of people who died in Iraq were killed by their fellow Muslims, not by the US. In fact, most of the murderous killings were done by your mates in Al-Qaeda

The US invaded Iraq on the basis of Iraq's non-compliance with UN Resolution 687, which brought the Gulf War to an end and specifically limited Saddam to missiles of no greater than 150 kilometer range. Saddam developed the Al-Samoud 2 with a range of 180 kilometers, which as a clear and material breach of the treaty extinguishes it and brings about the status quo ante (a state of conflict).

The US and Britain also had clear obligations under the Genocide Convention to prevent and punish genocide. Saddam Hussein's murderous campaign against the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs, his sponsorship of international terrorism, his invasion of Kuwait, his development of weapons of mass destruction, made him a clear menace to the region. The US and Britain were entitled, given Saddam's decision to break the treaty which ended the First Gulf War, to this time bring the war to a conclusive end with Saddam's overthrow.In so doing, the Americans and British set up a democratic government, and Iraq had its first free elections ever. Iraq now has dozens of TV channels, hundreds of newspapers and radio stations. The income of Iraqis has grown massively since 2003 and they are very well connected to the world.

The US did not exploit Iraq's resources, in fact they happily stood by while the Iraqis gave the juiciest contracts to the Chinese.During 2006/07, the US implemented its surge strategy, and with the help of the Sunni tribal sheikhs of Anbar, the Awakening movement, they defeated Al-Qaeda in Iraq and drove it out of the cities of the Sunni triangle. By 2010/11, when the US was asked to leave and did so without complaint, the death rate was down to about 5000 (something akin to South Africa's murder rate). ISIL's rebirth only came about due to the Syrian Civil War and the actions of Maliki, doing things he wouldn't have got away with when the Americans were there

The US did everything possible to give Iraq a fighting chance to have a new dawn of freedom in. It finally met its obligations to our friends the Kurds. And even now, we Brits and the Americans will do what is necessary to protect that progress and those gains.I know it makes you incredibly angry, you'd much rather see the Kurds crushed under the heel of Salafist extremism, but that's not going to happen.

In reality they only invaded Iraq purely to gain it's resources

That's an idiotic theory. After the US invaded Iraq, they set up a democratic government and protected that government as it held elections. They did nothing to intervene to stop that government handing over most of the oil extraction contracts to the Chinese. American troops protected the signing ceremony where the CEO of the Chinese state-backed oil company signed a contract with the Iraqi minister.

If the US were an imperial power they obviously would not have permitted that. The US gained nothing in the way of resources from the invasion of Iraq.

If you don't want to seem uneducated and ignorant, and embarrass yourself with untenable theories, perhaps you should read a few books about the post-2003 history of Iraq and the American occupation? By that I mean books by credible journalist, not some nonsense by an extremist Islamist preacher or conspiracy theorist. That doesn't count

So no they don't intervene to prevent genocide , they only intervene when it's in their best interest ( i.e prevent terror attacks)

There were no terror attacks by ISIL against the West before we intervened. We intervened when it was clear the Kurds and Iraqi state would fall without our help.

And it's clear you would prefer to see the genocide of the Kurds than that the West should intervene and stop ISIL.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 62

moggis

The bombers because a) they're doing it for money and b) it was almost certainly their ambition as a boy( or girl) to blow up people.

No contest then.

Reply 63

seeXYZ

Original post by newpersonage

The terrorists who attacked Paris believed that they were fighting for a good cause and even died for it. They mercilessly killed civilians.

The pilots who fly bombing raids over Syria, rubbelizing the whole country and killing thousands of civilians also believe they are in the right.

No war has been declared by the Western forces and although the ISIS forces have declared war on the West this was not an "official declaration".

Who is worst?

Complete bull***t - dumba*se statement.

If we were 10% as evil as these terrorists, the "Caliphate" would be a nuclear waste land.

Reply 64

troubadour.

Original post by AlifunArnab

Even though bomber pilots kill considerably more civilians?

Original post by QE2

Except this isn't how modern airstrikes work (I assume that you are referring specifically to Western forces, not Assad).
You've been watching too many films about the Blitz.

Also, the bombing raids aren't deliberately designed to target civilians in non-combat or military areas (TBH, I can't unequivocally say that this applies to the Russians, but one would hope so).

So, clearly the terrorist is worse.
Your transparent attempt at whataboutery clearly highlights your agenda and sympathies.

PRSOM.

Reply 65

troubadour.

Original post by seeXYZ

Complete bull***t - dumba*se statement.

If we were 10% as evil as these terrorists, the "Caliphate" would be a nuclear waste land.

Implying that what IS does is worse than reducing a populated region to a nuclear wasteland?

You're clearly steeped in rationalism, aren't you...

Reply 66

Speedbird189

Hard question. It would have to be the terrorist in this case, as they always set out with negative intentions. Bomber pilots could be described as more benevolent as they set out with good intentions - to destroy the enemy and to the save the innocent majority, even if this involves killing some innocents in this act.

Reply 67

seeXYZ

Original post by Hydeman

Implying that what IS does is worse than reducing a populated region to a nuclear wasteland?

You're clearly steeped in rationalism, aren't you...

You think if IS had nuclear weapon they wouldn't use it?

Reply 68

troubadour.

Original post by seeXYZ

You think if IS had nuclear weapon they wouldn't use it?

No, I don't think that. I'm not willing to assume that they would or they wouldn't unless there's some evidence for it. You could ask a rhetorical question of this kind with regards to Hezbollah, whose flag features a mushroom cloud, but there's little evidence that I've seen to suggest that IS would or wouldn't use a nuclear weapon if they had one.

I refer you back to my original objection:

Original post by seeXYZ

Complete bull***t - dumba*se statement.

If we were 10% as evil as these terrorists, the "Caliphate" would be a nuclear waste land.

Original post by Hydeman

Implying that what IS does [at present] is worse than reducing a populated region to a nuclear wasteland?

You're clearly steeped in rationalism, aren't you...

Disclaimer: Words in italicised square brackets added by me after the initial post to clarify my point.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 69

seeXYZ

Original post by Hydeman

No evidence?!!? What planet have you been living on?!?!

IS went out of their way to target, kill innocents people, cut people head-off, just for the hell of it ....you think their intention is benevolent?

Wake-up...

Reply 70

troubadour.

Original post by seeXYZ

No, I don't think their intention is benevolent. The fact that IS targets and kills innocent people, while highly condemnable, is not evidence that they would use a nuclear weapon should they manage to get hold of one. They've already shown themselves to be more militarily shrewd than other terrorist groups and it should follow, in the absence of any statement or indication by them that they would, that they'd think twice before using a nuclear weapon for self-preservation. To make that simple point is not to deny that IS kills innocent people on an industrial scale.

Reply 71

Simes

Original post by Hydeman

Hezbollah, whose flag features a mushroom cloud

I found that hard to believe, so I checked.

No it doesn't.

Reply 72

lucaf

The coalition have not killed thousands of civilians, as of August they had killed about 450. That is a shame, but that number is tiny compared to the (actual, not hyperbolic) thousands of ISIS militants killed in the campaign because unlike ISIS we do not purposely target civilians.

Reply 73

troubadour.

Original post by Simes

I found that hard to believe, so I checked.

No it doesn't.

Point taken. Their official flag doesn't have any such symbol -- I'd taken the information from a point by Christopher Hitchens (and corroborated separately by another journalist who was there) and, upon further inspection, it seems that it was displayed at the one particular Hezbollah rally that he attended. Apologies for any confusion.

Reply 74

seeXYZ

Original post by Hydeman

You are delusional.

Next to the Nazi, IS is up there with pure evil... you really need to re-think your "rationalism".

Reply 75

troubadour.

Original post by seeXYZ

You are delusional.

Next to the Nazi, IS is up there with pure evil... you really need to re-think your "rationalism".

It would be nice if you'd play the ball and not the man. What is your evidence that, should IS come to possess a nuclear weapon, that they would definitely use it? Your reasoning so far has been to say that their evil acts against civilians somehow prove that they would -- this is a clear non sequitur, and calling me delusional won't change that fact.

I think I'm pretty justified in questioning your rationalism when you use emotional arguments like, 'they cut people's heads off, so they would definitely use a nuclear weapon.'

Reply 76

TaintedLight

Original post by newpersonage

While I understand your grievance, I can acknowledge the US coalition had made careless mistakes in the their quest of exterminating militants in the middle east.

But to imply, the coalition targeted airstrikes at public gatherings, or a market is an absolute lie. I have personally seen videos where the coalition decides not to shoot a suspected militant because he was (presumably) with his wife and children. Mistakes were made in some instances and it may have gone officially unacknowledged. That is bad and frankly somewhat inevitable.

Who are worse? It's not really difficult to answer, it's the guys at Syria/Iraq brainwashing the alienated youths to forfeit their life for the "greater good".

Reply 77

seeXYZ

Original post by Hydeman

IS is all about a simple word .... TERROR.

What weapon would cause the most terror? ... Nuclear.

All their actions (not just cutting people heads off ... google it, do some homework) thus far, shows no boundary to their evil limits.

Reply 78

Dumdedumdedum

One wants to control, the other wants freedom from control. Both are looking for a better world but forcing this on others is the mistake.

Reply 79

leinad2012

The terrorists are worse for only targeting civilians, but that doesn't mean those bombing from drones (from the safety of their own based in the united states i believe) are good people. It's a stupid middle ground policy that is never going to work. Either stay out completely or bring troops in, even if it means bad publicity. Put yourself in a Syrians shoes, all they see is the us flags (symbolically speaking) on the bombs being dropped on their town. Whatever the motives are, how are they going to feel? Pissed off? Angry? Want to retaliate?
All droning will ever do is make more people join IS even if it means killing targets. Just a flow of extremists being killed and people being radicalised.