Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TSR Mustafa)
    When i said it's better , i was saying that belief is one which is held by a large portion of the west. Of course , genocide can never be justified.
    What utter nonsense. The West has intervened to prevent genocide, you were the one who just said genocide was preferable to the anarchy that might come from intervention. That is clearly your view and the Islamist view, given nobody in the West other than Islamists subscribes to that view. Nice try to deflect blame to the West (as per usual... does the script ever change with you people?)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The killings of innocent people is always wrong, no matter the cause, the flag or the means.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Both. The two acts aren't comparable and they are both equally as dispicable as people die and are forced to live in fear.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by woIfie)
    What utter nonsense. The West has intervened to prevent genocide, you were the one who just said genocide was preferable to the anarchy that might come from intervention. That is clearly your view and the Islamist view, given nobody in the West other than Islamists subscribes to that view. Nice try to deflect blame to the West (as per usual... does the script ever change with you people?)
    The west clearly facilitate the view that genocide is acceptable , if it results in no terror attacks in their own countries. When you say the west has intervened , lets say Iraq. They intervened on the basis that Iraq was in possession nuclear warheads which they evidently were not. They then proceed to annihilate the entire nation , with at least half a million dead. In reality they only invaded Iraq purely to gain it's resources. So no they don't intervene to prevent genocide , they only intervene when it's in their best interest ( i.e prevent terror attacks). Also , i don't hold the view that genocide is acceptable as i've already said , read the entire thread before you take quotes out of context.

    In terms of blame , the west is inevitably partially responsible for the terror attacks due to their presence in Muslim countries , it's not a coincidence terror attacks have increased by 5 fold since Iraq's invasion. Of course , despite the barbaric actions by the west on a mass scale , it doesn't warrant more bloodshed through the callous murder of innocents by terrorists.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Terrorists = deliberately attack civilians

    Bombers = attack who their leaders tell them to attack, with intent on killing enemy soldiers

    is it really that hard to think through?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by battycatlady)
    Both. The two acts aren't comparable and they are both equally as dispicable as people die and are forced to live in fear.
    This isn't 1945 anymore. NATO could send dozens of B-52s & level IS held cities in Iraq or Syria if they so desired. But they won't as guided munitions such Hellfires, Brimstones etc are very accurate & can take out enemy forces with no loss of life to civilians or even their property.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TSR Mustafa)
    The middle east was more stable before the west interfered , just look at Iraq before and after the US invasion.
    Yes, Kurdish genocide is preferable :rolleyes:
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    Yes, Kurdish genocide is preferable :rolleyes:
    Seems like you've understood me , mocking me doesn't help.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by battycatlady)
    Both. The two acts aren't comparable and they are both equally as dispicable as people die and are forced to live in fear.
    This is just sanctimonious nonsense. Of course the intention plays a key part. Especially when you consider that one is to take out genocidal terrorists and the other is to purposely kill as many innocent civilians as possible.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    depends which side your on. Good and bad are entirely subject as are a lot of things.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    The death toll from bombing is in thousands....
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by woIfie)
    You are confused (or a lying thug).

    Western airstrikes in Syria and Iraq have been highly targeted strikes. Only 400 civilians have been killed as against 18,000 ISIL terrorists killed over 15 months. That is obviously different to ISIL thugs gunning down 128 civilians in a single day.
    A friend of mine was in Iraq and he said that those photos of surgical bombing are largely propaganda. The bombs ensure that the target, and much of what is nearby dies. Just look at the figures that you are quoting and ask yourself about gullibility.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 雷尼克)
    Terrorists = deliberately attack civilians

    Bombers = attack who their leaders tell them to attack, with intent on killing enemy soldiers

    is it really that hard to think through?
    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.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    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

    Scenario 2)
    If (French Bomber kills INNOCENT Syrian) AND (Terrorist kills INNOCENT French that had nothing to do with Syria) Then

    French Bomber and Terrorist are equally bad and both should be held accountable for using civilians in war.

    Scenario 3)
    If (French Bomber kills NON-INNOCENT Terrorists in Syria) AND (Terrorist kills INNOCENT French that had nothing to do with Syria) Then

    Terrorist is worse than French Bomber.

    Scenario 4)
    If (French Bomber kills NON-INNOCENT Terrorists in Syria) AND (Terrorist kills NON-INNOCENT French that killed NON-INNOCENT Terrorist in Syria) Then

    Both Terrorist and French Bomb Pilot are at war but we need to see context to see who is the right side.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    every time a terrorist is vaporised i get a warm tingle inside. my pleasure at Mr John's departure was diminished because none of my tax quids paid for the munitions.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by driftawaay)
    Their intention is to eliminate terrorists which would benefit both the West and those people whose family members are being killed by drones.
    From a terrorists perspective, we are evil. Do you understand that? If you were raised in Syria, you would probably support ISIS, and so would I. They're not inherently bad human beings.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unbannable)
    From a terrorists perspective, we are evil. Do you understand that? If you were raised in Syria, you would probably support ISIS, and so would I. They're not inherently bad human beings.
    So you are saying that those fleeing from Syria to Europe right now are ISIS supporters?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    The death toll from bombing is in thousands....
    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.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    This is a stupid question. Would a soldier/pilot feel guilt for the innocents he has killed? Mostly certainly yes, especially if they seen firsthand the death of said people/person. Does a terrorist? No because they explicitly target innocents frequently.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    The terrorist. After all, the bomber pilot could also be classed as a terrorist.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
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.