Who is worse, a bomber pilot or a terrorist?

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.

There are 4 scenarios:

Scenario 1)
If (French Bomber kills INNOCENT Syrian) AND (Terrorist kills NON-INNOCENT French that killed INNOCENT Syrian) Then

French Bomber is worse than Terrorist

...

Could you link to a source that shows the death toll amongst civilians as a result of Western forces bombing strikes is in the thousands?
Thanks.

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.

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

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

Their intentions are better.

Western leaders are fully aware that they're killing innocent civilians, yet choose not to change their strategies that would target just specific individuals (i.e. terrorist leaders).

Theyve got to be considered as being just as bad as their terrorist counterparts

Two problems with this analysis. A Syrian who had lost people to French bombs might consider that those who supplied the money to build the planes and the votes to support the bombing are not innocent and the bomber pilot can never be certain that any building or vehicle actually contains a non-innocent target.

Even though bomber pilots kill considerably more civilians?

If it were that clear cut I would agree but many villages in Syria have been literally rubbelized. People in basements, hiding under stairs etc are also killed and nearby buildings are also destroyed.

I am in favour of declaring war on ISIS and pursuing it to its logical conclusion. If we must. I am also in favour of ending a dangerous level of migration of people from the countries that become our enemies.

The people who fight for ISIS on our territory should be treated as enemy aliens in a war. As should their supporters.

This being at war but not fighting it is utter nonsense and is politically motivated by a political elite that regards the ordinary people as little better than animals.

who says they do? IS and such groups have killed millions over the years
if you ask this question you also need to ask why do those islamic fighters also go and hide themselves amoung muslim civilians - do bomber pilots go and hide amoung their own civilians?

another black mark for terroist

The comparison is stupid but if we're talking bomber pilots from everywhere, of course they've killed more people than 'terrorists'.

As for your question, it doesn't take a genius to understand that those who are militarily weaker need to find a way to avoid being hit. Since bomber pilots do not have this worry, they do not need to hide.

no we are talking about pilots operating in current active zones with islamist groups - thats fairly obvious

if a bomber is called up for duty and has no place, as part of armed forces he is required to fight , on the front line if needed. he would not go and hide behind some pregnant women to avoid a bullet like islamically inspired fighters do.

the rules of war are very differnt if you follow the geneva convention compared to if you read the quran

Pilots WITH Islamist groups or pilots AGAINST Islamist groups?

The former have no pilots and the latter do not land anywhere near Islamists nor do Islamists have the weaponry to shoot them down.

You also seem to have confused yourself in the second paragraph.

Again, this is very simplistic reasoning (based on the very faulty premise that IS only exists to cause terror) that doesn't actually support your claims that IS would a) use a nuclear weapon should they come to possess one and b) that their current atrocities are worse than dropping a nuclear bomb on a populated region (source).

Everything they have done so far suggests that they aren't just a bunch of cave-dwelling sons of construction magnates -- they know how to fight a war and formulate strategies. A single nuclear weapon, should they come to possess one, is of far greater use as a threat than if it were actually used. I doubt that it has escaped the notice of IS leaders that their enemies -- that is to say the West and Russia -- have many more nuclear weapons than they could ever hope to possess. Enough to render their puny caliphate uninhabitable.

Given that there is no great evidence that they definitely would or would not use such a weapon, this kind of speculation is all we have. What makes my speculation more valid than yours? It's logically extrapolated from what we already know about them and doesn't try to masquerade as absolute fact. You've made two assertions ((a) and b) as above) that aren't supported by your reasoning. There's no reason to presume that their butchering of civilians is evidence for what they would do if they got their hands on a nuclear weapon.



You seem to think that their treatment of civilians using conventional weapons (yes, I'm aware that it's not restricted to beheadings...) is somehow directly comparable to what they would do with a nuclear weapon. It isn't. Cutting off people's heads, raping women and children, throwing homosexuals from the tops of tall buildings -- these are all things that, while rightfully considered abhorrent by the West, they're more or less sure won't be responded to in a similar fashion. They are just not seen as serious enough for the West to capture an IS fighter and cut his head off or rape his wife and kids. A nuclear weapon detonation, I would argue, would be seen as serious enough to merit dropping a nuclear bomb (or firing a ballistic missile) on the Islamic State. The knee-jerk reaction from that, particularly among irrational people, would be too great to allow anything else.

Bottom line: the situation is a little more nuanced than you'd like to think. There's no basis in evidence for the claims you've made thus far, and you seem to think that they should be accepted by me as 'common sense' or as a way to fend off accusations of being delusional. Neither, unfortunately for you, is going to happen. I don't like emotional arguments.

I asked who is worst. Clearly you believe ISIS has no redeeming features.

Its's really is that simple.

If you can't see the obvious, then I can't help you. They slaughtered, rape, enslave Muslims and non-Muslims alike. If you choose to believe they won't do it, then its your choice. Maybe you need a closer look, maybe you should stay in the Caliphate for a month or two... and see if their values is really closer to ours...

The fact that you can't tell the difference between a Hezbolla's flag and "mushroom cloud" speaks volume.

Hey, it's a free country, your choice.