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

    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    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.
    Airwars claims that reports of civilian casualties in the whole campaign are between 600 and 1900, although it admits that it is difficult to verify most of these. Airwars collates local reports of casualties in an area with coalition operational reports.

    The coalition claims a few.
    Remember that the Syrian and Iraqi airforces are also fflying regular missions in the region, and they both use unguided munitions.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    This perpetual rubbelizing of Syria is just appalling and creating hatred for generations.
    You keep repeating this, and it merely highlights a credulity and willingness to accept false information as long as it supports your narrative. The "rubbleising" of Syria has been carried out almost exclusively by Syrians. Just like the manyf thousands killed in Iraq and Afghanistan were mostly killed by their countrymen - all Muslims on both sides BTW.
    Why is the hatred not being directed at the main perpetrators of the slaughter and destruction?

    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
    The only "brainwashing" being shown here is yours, if you genuinely believe that the destruction and death toll was caused by the West.
    All the West did was remove the totalitarian structure that had prevented the population of the region from tearing each other to pieces. The West doesn't need to do any mass slaughter - the locals are more that happy to do that themselves.

    just a few more Madrids, Charlie Hebdos and Londons and the people will be ready for us to invade the lot of them".
    If you really think that the West want to get involved in another land war in the Middle East, why do you think that they were so keen to get out of there in the last few years.
    Try actually thinking things through on the evidence, rather than just sucking up what the conspiracist websites pump out.
    Brainwashed! Ha! I actually laughed. Thanks for that.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Terrorism ~ the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
    But that is not a definition of terrorism. It is merely a definition of military action. The military command of ISIS will have officially authorised the attacks in Paris.
    Are guerrilla fighters in an occupied country terrorists?

    The definition needs to include the concept of unprovoked attacks on non-combatants with the intention of using fear within a population as a means of influencing political opinion.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    But that is not a definition of terrorism. It is merely a definition of military action. The military command of ISIS will have officially authorised the attacks in Paris.
    Are guerrilla fighters in an occupied country terrorists?

    The definition needs to include the concept of unprovoked attacks on non-combatants with the intention of using fear within a population as a means of influencing political opinion.
    Yes!

    I agree. That is the problem.

    Military actions is normally authorized though. The problem is who does the authorizing. Terrorist are normally people who commit violence that goes against the interests of a dominant state. That doesn't actually leave much moral room on what terrorism means. Nelson Mandella was a terrorist for example and we all now treat him a hero. American state carried out actions of terrorism in Vietnam.

    I agree your bottom definition is better but in reality terrorism is almost always used as a propaganda term. Also I'm not sure ISIS fit the above description. They are not like the IRA that killed civilians or placed bombs that could kill civilians to further their own political goals. ISIS are basically at war with everyone who isn't a "true Muslim" like them. DO they care about furthering a political goal or are they just killing what they see as the enemy?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reformed)
    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......
    I don't believe that either side has "honour". The drone attacks are probably the best recruiter that IS has got.

    The West (and now Russia) must either invade and occupy Syria like old fashioned colonialists or get out. There is no in between option.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by seeXYZ)
    Why don't you list their "redeeming features" ...?
    Why don't you?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    .. The "rubbleising" of Syria has been carried out almost exclusively by Syrians.
    So bombs do not even turn buildings to rubble?

    The only "brainwashing" being shown here is yours, if you genuinely believe that the destruction and death toll was caused by the West.
    I did not say that. What I have said is that either the "West" should be at war or it should not. It definitely should not create a state of neither war nor not-war.

    All the West did was remove the totalitarian structure that had prevented the population of the region from tearing each other to pieces. The West doesn't need to do any mass slaughter - the locals are more that happy to do that themselves.
    So you are blaming the West. I didn't go that far.

    If you really think that the West want to get involved in another land war in the Middle East, why do you think that they were so keen to get out of there in the last few years. Try actually thinking things through on the evidence, rather than just sucking up what the conspiracist websites pump out.
    Brainwashed! Ha! I actually laughed. Thanks for that.
    My point is that the West should either get out or get in, not spend a decade poking at a wound.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    I don't believe that either side has "honour". The drone attacks are probably the best recruiter that IS has got.

    The West (and now Russia) must either invade and occupy Syria like old fashioned colonialists or get out. There is no in between option.
    honour is subjective. a soldier will claim he doesnt target civliians, militarys spend millions and time planning attacks to minimise casualities when they could quite simply drop a cluster bomb. you can argue these are ' honourable ' actions to the extent they are trying even in difficult circumstances - even though mistakes are made.

    the islamist , protecting a civilian doesnt come into mind one bit- all that is important is the islamic agenda, human life is worthless to them.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reformed)
    honour is subjective. a soldier will claim he doesnt target civliians, militarys spend millions and time planning attacks to minimise casualities when they could quite simply drop a cluster bomb. you can argue these are ' honourable ' actions to the extent they are trying even in difficult circumstances - even though mistakes are made.

    the islamist , protecting a civilian doesnt come into mind one bit- all that is important is the islamic agenda, human life is worthless to them.
    I seriously doubt that human life is worthless to all IS followers. Your point that an action is honourable if it is not the very worst action that you could perpetrate seems strange...
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Surely depends on what you agree to bomb.
    The Medicine without Borders Hospitals, for instance, would be a big no no.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlifunArnab)
    Ok. Tell that to the families of those killed by drones.

    I'm sure they'll say the drone operator didn't mean it.



    Really?

    Let's take Russia for example. They're in Syria killing considerably more civilians than fighters. It's complete carelessness on their part.

    How is that considered as better intentions?
    russia killing civilians more than the americans no no no you listened to the liberal agenda and falling in to the media's cage but ok russia killed some civilians but they were targeting isis supplies of weapon and vehicle storage sites

    (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.
    9/11 was caused by the us and blamed on al qaeda who were funded by the missing gold bars from the world trade center vault and this lead to the 'god' wars of iraq and afghanistan (god being gold, oil and drugs that could be pilfered and sold by the US forces) and the us then left behind a lot of the equipment as it was 'too expensive' to transport it all back to the usa as it was taken by isis and well you know the rest
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    I seriously doubt that human life is worthless to all IS followers. Your point that an action is honourable if it is not the very worst action that you could perpetrate seems strange...
    in the doctrine they follow the human life is worthless compared to achiveing the islamic aims of conquest - hence why its so easy for them to blow themselves up or use human shields, target civilians etc which is the stand islamic mantra we have seen
    im pointing out the difference, a solider is still a killing machine but the idea of honour in war, rules of engagement and indeed geneva convention etc was introduced with intention of protecting non-combatants to whatever extent possible during war, regardless of the military aim. it is possible to seem some idea of honour in war here. islam doesnt have these provisos, and very much cements the idea the human life is expendable for the furtherance of islamic aims - hence the idea of 'shaheed' - in islam a soldier can be sacrificed or even a small child if it suits the goal. it de-humanises do there is zero honour in this principle
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    A terrorist is a worse human being as he looks into the eyes of his victims. Bombing raids are part of the mechanisation of the grisly business of warfare. A bomber pilot can depersonalise his victims.

    Furthermore, bombers act on orders issued as part of a clear structure within the military that one obeys one's superiors without question. Terrorists act far more on their own initiative and have more of a choice to cancel the plot.

    A final point is that bombers, at least in principle, are aiming at a target of strategic military importance, even if civilians are killed as collateral damage. Terrorists target civilians deliberately.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    to suggest that the USA left behind fully functioning weapons systems after the war is ludicrous.

    It was deemed too expensive to repatriate some kit, which was cut into scrap rather than return it.

    However, some Us supplied kit has been captured from US trained anti-ISIS troops
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newpersonage)
    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".
    I don't get the "perpetual rubbelizing" you are speaking of. Are you implying the coalition is bombing whatever building/inhabitants they are able to spot?

    2nd paragraph - A portion of media has played it's part in brainwashing some of the folks. Yes, they are then hard coded to hate. And sometime they get in to politics and continue reflecting their hate. This cycle is something you'll see in every country.

    3rd - Such people exist. They dehumanize civilians who turn to violence and revolt. I can agree. But you can't expect all of us to support their violent cause.

    Going back to your op, I'm pretty much repeating myself

    One group consists of militants who wants to divide the global population and cause chaos. The other group (you call it bomber pilot) is disrupting their aspirations. Who is worse? It's definitely not the bomber pilot.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    They are attempting to stabilise an unstable nation. Terrorists are attempting destabilise.
    History has shown time and time again that you can't stabilise a nation by bombing it.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anosmianAcrimony)
    History has shown time and time again that you can't stabilise a nation by bombing it.
    Nor can you stabilise a nation by placating the elements that are seeking to destroy it. Your only option is to remove those elements.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    A terrorist is a worse human being as he looks into the eyes of his victims. Bombing raids are part of the mechanisation of the grisly business of warfare. A bomber pilot can depersonalise his victims..
    It is weird but in previous generations it was always held that a true soldier would look his enemy in the eye and it was cowards who would poison or remotely kill...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiceTheSlice)
    I don't get the "perpetual rubbelizing" you are speaking of. Are you implying the coalition is bombing whatever building/inhabitants they are able to spot?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    You think ISIS are bad to the west? You should see how they treat people in the middle east.
 
 
 
Poll
Are you going to a festival?
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.