Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

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

    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Can'tStumpTrump)
    Liberal brains are too small to understand this
    OP isn't liberal
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    OP isn't liberal
    Socialist, whatever
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (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???????????????????????????? ???????????????
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    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?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Stop jumping to conclusions. Of course nobody's happy about the deaths of those Syrian children, what kind of sicko would be?

    The difference in this case is that when civilians are living in the middle of a war zone they have a very high chance of getting caught in the crossfire. Such deaths are unavoidable because the civilians didn't move out of the way. That doesn't make it right, but it's a fact of war. Also keep in mind that those children weren't innocent, they were killed when Russia bombed a jihadist brainwashing center and were terrorists in training. The child who was decapitated actually was innocent. He was a civilian not a junior terrorist, that makes it totally different.

    It's an unfortunate fact of war that savages like ISIS get children involved because they know that the 'soft compassionate westies' will hesitate to take action against children, even if those children are terrorists. That hesitation gives them an advantage. This is the real crime. ISIS is brainwashing children and making them into soldiers and terrorists, so unfortunately it then becomes necessary to take action against them even though they're kids, because they've become a threat to all of the innocent children back home in Europe. I wish we could get right into the heart of ISIS and save those poor kids, but at present that's not possible so the only options available are burying our heads in the sand and letting ISIS ruin the lives of more children or destroying ISIS' brainwashing centers albeit at the cost of some brainwashed children's lives.

    I'm not saying it's right, I hate this too and I wish that such atrocities never had to happen! I'm just saying, instead of pointing fingers and yelling "bigot" you should actually analyse the situation first and bear in mind that war is war. It's savage and inhumane, nothing is going to change that. In fact it will only get worse as ISIS brainwashes more children. We shouldn't fight among ourselves like this. The real culprit is ISIS, we must fight them instead.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    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
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (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.

    (:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Except Russia doesn't drop barrel bombs, Syria does.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (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
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.