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

Who is worse, a bomber pilot or a terrorist? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by seeXYZ)
    IS is all about a simple word .... TERROR.

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

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

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UnknownDude)
    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

    ...
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    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.
    Here is a Guardian article http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...vilians-report There were 5700 air strikes and the 52 strikes that were analysed in depth were found to have resulted in 459 civilian deaths. OK, there probably would not have been >40,000 civilian casualties but "thousands" is a reasonable description.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by woIfie)
    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.
    [/QUOTE]

    What disingenuous and obfuscating nonsense. If someone's mother is in a house that gets blown up she gets killed. If a kid is in a car she gets killed. The combat is occurring in villages and towns where fighters are highly mixed with civilians. See my post above.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    I asked who is worst. Clearly you believe ISIS has no redeeming features.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    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
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by apensivemind)
    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
    Source?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiceTheSlice)
    While I understand your grievance,...

    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".
    There was no grievance, I was asking who was the worst. In fact, if we are going to have a war I believe that we should declare a war and execute it to a definite victory. This perpetual rubbelizing of Syria is just appalling and creating hatred for generations.

    I also believe that a substantial proportion of "Westerners" have been brainwashed. If you are at war you have a war. The only way that we have tolerated the past 20 years of half a war is because the Western media have convinced the majority that it is fine to torture a region with perpetual bloodshed and a good idea to import the citizens of the tortured area into your own country.

    Its crazy and smacks of some exceedingly callous management of the Western population. Its almost as if somewhere there are scum who are saying "we cant fool them with threats of WMDs but just a few more Madrids, Charlie Hebdos and Londons and the people will be ready for us to invade the lot of them".
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    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.
    Thats the problem with war not my analysis.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlifunArnab)
    Even though bomber pilots kill considerably more civilians?
    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
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    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.
    the problem you ignore is that islamic fighter has no honour, no sense of morality, no rules if you like - he only beleives in his superiority given to him by islamic doctrine - to him life (on this planet) is worthless . islamic fighters would throw their bomb-strapped children at the enemy ( which they have done in past) if they felt it would give a small victory to the progression of islamic empire.

    how does a civilised nation combat this enemy? even if we were at war with russia or china, we would expect some sort of 'rules of engagement' to apply - ie they would send in undercover soldiers to shoot people in a rock concert, firstly becuase it would be deemd a cowardly act, and 2nd it would not acheive anything militarily. islamic fighters do not have the intelligence of a conventional military - their purpose is not win a battle , it is to spread fear ie 'terrorism'
    then they hide behind human shileds becuase they know about other countries intention to minimise civilian casualties is opposite to islamist mentality. in reality without this concern, the west has enough firepower to level every islamist harbouring population on the planet, it could jail every muslim living within its borders as a suspect - you may ask yourself the question why hasnt it done this
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reformed)
    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.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlifunArnab)
    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
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Terrorism ~ the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.


    There is a problem with that in that just because something us authorized by a higher power does not make it morally acceptable.

    A bomber pilot can still carry out acts that count as terrorism according to the above definition. So it's a bit of a crud question.

    However these Paris terrorists are neither carrying out terrorism for a noble cause (if a cause can be noble if it involves the use of terrorism?) and definitely are just targeting civilians. Is it actually terrosim though? They think they are in a war as far as they are concerned and it isn't like with IRA where they were placing bombs top further their political objectives of UK giving up rule of Northern Island. ISIS are just killing blasphemous devil worshipers as far as they are concerned. They aren't killing people to further aims, killing people is the aim. They are in a holy war.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reformed)
    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.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlifunArnab)
    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.
    the OP is comparing to pilots attacking the islamists. thats pretty obvious. and they target islamic fighters but as invetable, the civilians they hide amoungst do get killed too. but then islamists know this and deliberatly hide there, they have no value for a muslim civilian life, so long as it helps their propaganda to promote islamic empire
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    I asked who is worst. Clearly you believe ISIS has no redeeming features.
    Why don't you list their "redeeming features" ...?
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by seeXYZ)
    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...
    You haven't addressed anything I've said. Did I say that their values are close to ours? No. Did I say that they don't kill, rape and enslave Muslims and non-Muslims alike? No. To pretend that that long essay says any of those things is to put words in my mouth and criticise them -- an indication, if any more was needed, that you're not reading my reasoned rebuttals to your points but want to avoid having to admit that you made some mistaken claims, largely the product of your own unwillingness to read the posts you're replying to.

    If it's so obvious, then you shouldn't be having this much difficulty coming up with counter-arguments. Surely if my points are so based on personal belief and choosing (despite you being the one who has neither arguments nor evidence for your view) what to believe and contradict that which is obvious, you can come up with at least one rebuttal.

    The fact that you can't tell the difference between a Hezbolla's flag and "mushroom cloud" speaks volume.
    Er, no it doesn't. I was mistaken on one point and even that was only half-mistaken -- it wasn't their official flag but was waved around as an unofficial banner containing anti-Semitic inscriptions at a particular rally reported by several journalists independently. I freely admitted the mistake, unlike you, who seems to take refuge in personal attacks and not addressing what I've said.

    And even if I had idiotically stuck to my mistaken claim in light of contradictory evidence like you seem to be doing, it wouldn't 'speak volume [sic]' about my argument about IS. You bringing that up as if it's some sort of trump card has a strictly technical term for it: grasping at straws when you've lost the argument.

    Hey, it's a free country, your choice.
    I'm entitled to my opinion but not my facts, as are you. What a pathetic ending to an equally paltry argument.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    If there were no terrorists, there would be no need for bomber pilots.

    So terrorists are worse.

    (Plus bomber pilots have good intentions - to stop the spread of terrorism)
 
 
 
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.