The Student Room Group

Why is everyone outraged over this woman beheading a child, when...

Scroll to see replies

Original post by JordanL_
Yep, I'm trolling because I'm asking you to clarify your vague, meaningless statement.


No, because you're unable to make a mature point without making irrelevant comparisons.
Original post by Mathemagicien
Civilian casualties of a military kind, for political reasons =/= nanny beheading child in her care, in a non-warzone, for religious reasons


Liberal brains are too small to understand this
Original post by Can'tStumpTrump
Liberal brains are too small to understand this


OP isn't liberal
Original post by Mathemagicien
OP isn't liberal


Socialist, whatever
Original post by Aceadria
No, because you're unable to make a mature point without making irrelevant comparisons.


.....How are my comparisons irrelevant? Dead kids are dead kids, and when I try to discuss why it's relevant you tell me I'm trolling.

I think you just don't know what you're talking about.
Original post by Can'tStumpTrump
Socialist, whatever


He's just 'tolerant' and thus 'holier than thou'

That has little to do with left/right division
Original post by JordanL_
.....How are my comparisons irrelevant? Dead kids are dead kids, and when I try to discuss why it's relevant you tell me I'm trolling.

I think you just don't know what you're talking about.



As you wish. You still haven't answered my initial point: how does:

Original post by Aceadria
Military vs. Civilian. Jolly good comparison.


mean:

Original post by JordanL_
So it's okay for the military to massacre 200 kids? What???????????????????????????????????????????
(edited 8 years ago)
There is something much more distant about an airstrike than to behead a child who is literally in your clutches, also to most individual crimes have more of an impact. Large numbers just sound like a statistic.

The Russians I cannot speak for, I hope they did not have the intent of murdering children, it wasn't like they were striking for the sake of killing kids but this woman had the sole intent of murdering a child? Do you think one cannot be outraged by both? You downplay the brutal act by this woman in a way to further your narrative.
Why do people always like to play this "who can grieve over the most atrocities" game to further some irrelevant "I'm better than you" agenda?
Original post by Aceadria
Military vs. Civilian. Jolly good comparison.


I get what you mean but collateral damage is an argument that is getting old. For example, its been found that drone strikes have 90% civilian casualties. That is a level of incompetence which canmot excused by just collateral damage. Plus, drone striking just makes it worse. People die indiscriminately and if ISIS loses 10 people, 50 people joins them as they scared, fuelled by ISIS propaganda or just lost their child etc. You're just going to create a generation of people that hates the US/UK even more. Its hard to fight bad ideas with indiscriminatory carpet bombing.

This is not too dissimilar when Nixon and Kissinger carpet bombed Cambodia so the people feared and turned khmer rouge and Pol Pot to protect them... Pol Pot abused the situation to get to power.

Isn't it weird that terrorism has since gone up since the US decided to declare war on it. Are all the military that incompetent? The apparent lack of strategy and planning is concerning.
People have been made to expect it of Russia, the beheading is totally unexpected, and like pedophile teachers and priests it's also a case of the position of trust compounding the severity of the acts.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by JordanL_
...nobody is outraged that Russia has killed 200 kids since they started bombing Syria? The hypocrisy is absolutely disgusting.

Once again, people are pretending to care, but they're really just trying to push their political views. 200 kids bombed by Russia, nobody even notices. But a Muslim kills one kid, and the world is in ****ing uproar.

Of course the radical kippers will be crawling out of the woodwork to accuse me of not caring about this poor child being beheaded. But no, I care deeply, and it shouldn't have happened. I also care about the Syrians being massacred.

The people who really don't care are the xenophobes using this child's death to gain support for their hate campaign. Truly disgusting behaviour, you people should be ashamed.


I completely understand where youre coming from, im someone whos followed the syrian events unfold in the country from the beginning .
However although there is speculation from media and turkey of the actuall sites the bobms hit and there being more civillian casualties
The bombs are intended for isis , not kids. Russia doesnt go out activley trying to bomb the chilldren of syria. Despite what people say of russia as it supports assads regime. I dont think a country would kill the future chilldren of a struggling but a strong potentialfull country.
As for the woman in the news ,the links someone doing a despicable act will be portrayed in the media especially if she shouts allah huakbaar , when there is news of isis and islamic extremisim and people put two and two together
The news of a child being killed even if it wasnt a muslim like the death of baby P will be in the news
Futhermore the woman has a history of severe mental illness ans at one point was labelled as insane.
I just hope isis is crushed . Syria can be rebuilt a democracy for all the syrians and middle east counterparts ,migrants so that the threat is destroyed.

(:
Original post by Aceadria
Military vs. Civilian. Jolly good comparison.


How can the russian government authorise military intervention that has lead to 200 children but the world condemns this highly publicised attack by a mental woman?

The comparison is completely valid as both this woman and the Kremlin are criminals.
Reply 33
Avatar for Wellzi
Wellzi
16
Original post by JordanL_
So it's okay for the military to massacre 200 kids? What???????????????????????????????????????????

The Russian military hasn't massacred anyone in Syria, you clearly don't understand the meaning of the term. Death in war is unavoidable, even civilian ones, but some religious psycho beheading someone does not even compare.
Original post by JordanL_
So it's okay for the military representing an entire country to deliberately target civilians, but when one woman kills someone it's abhorrent and reflects poorly on all Muslims?

The Russian military is not deliberately killing civilians as a means of waging war, where as IS is. And it's not the fact that a woman cut a child's head off that reflects poorly on Muslims, it's the repeated acts of terror and the Islamic communities around the world either turning a blind eye or expressing support.
Original post by Wellzi
The Russian military hasn't massacred anyone in Syria, you clearly don't understand the meaning of the term. Death in war is unavoidable, even civilian ones, but some religious psycho beheading someone does not even compare.

The Russian military is not deliberately killing civilians as a means of waging war, where as IS is. And it's not the fact that a woman cut a child's head off that reflects poorly on Muslims, it's the repeated acts of terror and the Islamic communities around the world either turning a blind eye or expressing support.


A Nato General disagrees with you.

General Phil Breedlove, Nato’s Supreme Allied Commander for Europe and head of the US European Command, said weapons such as barrel bombs have no military value to hit precise targets and instead serve to terrorise those living in rebel-held territories.

He told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the destruction formed part of a deliberate strategy to “get them on the road” and “make them a problem for someone else”.


Original post by Retired_Messiah
Why do people always like to play this "who can grieve over the most atrocities" game to further some irrelevant "I'm better than you" agenda?


It has nothing to do with being better than anyone. I'm genuinely concerned for the hundreds of people being killed, but nothing is done about it because quite simply, nobody cares. Nobody condemns Russia for killing civilians, but they'll condemn Muslims for the actions of one person.
Reply 35
Avatar for Wellzi
Wellzi
16
Original post by JordanL_

Except Russia doesn't drop barrel bombs, Syria does.
Original post by Wellzi
Except Russia doesn't drop barrel bombs, Syria does.


Well the Nato General disagrees with you again, because he was explicitly referring to Russia.
Reply 37
Avatar for Wellzi
Wellzi
16
Original post by JordanL_
Well the Nato General disagrees with you again, because he was explicitly referring to Russia.

NATO, and organization founded on opposing Russia and to this day is in place to deter it is not the most reliable source for info on Russian bombings.

But that's besides the point, because he does not once say that Russia is dropping barrel bombs, you're making that bit up pal.
Original post by JordanL_
Well the Nato General disagrees with you again, because he was explicitly referring to Russia.


And naturally a NATO general is going to praise Russia...

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Mathemagicien
Civilian casualties of a military kind, for political reasons =/= nanny beheading child in her care, in a non-warzone, for religious reasons


The reasons weren't strictly religious in the sense the Paris attacks were. She was Schizophrenic, while Islamic doctrine definitely put those thoughts into her head, it was mental illness that was ultimately responsible.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you