Incident At Arndale Shopping Centre Manchester

[Branyy 10]

3 hours ago, Halibut said:

Yes, absolutely. Think about WW2 bomber crews for example.

Are you comparing WW2 soldiers to terrorists?

[Padders 2,833]

4 hours ago, Halibut said:

Yes, absolutely. Think about WW2 bomber crews for example.

What an incredibly silly post.

[Halibut 12]

7 hours ago, Padders said:

What an incredibly silly post.

 

8 hours ago, Branyy said:

Are you comparing WW2 soldiers to terrorists?

I'm answering the question which was asked - 'Can completely sane people commit atrocious acts on strangers?' - to which the answer is clearly yes.

Unless it's your view that dropping high explosives and incendiaries onto major centres of population - leading to thousands of men, women and children being torn apart or incinerated - isn't atrocious, or that all bomber aircrew were completely insane, your protests are hollow.

Edited October 17, 2019 by Halibut

[Padders 2,833]

20 minutes ago, Halibut said:

 

I'm answering the question which was asked - 'Can completely sane people commit atrocious acts on strangers?' - to which the answer is clearly yes.

Unless it's your view that dropping high explosives and incendiaries onto major centres of population - leading to thousands of men, women and children being torn apart or incinerated - isn't atrocious, or that all bomber aircrew were completely insane, your protests are hollow.

But Hal,

The world war bomber crews were defending our country, and NOT committing atrocious acts on strangers, many many bomber crews sacrificed their lives in the cause of freedom.

Personally I can't thank them enough.

 

Had you mentioned Bomber Harris, who bombed Dresden for no strategic reason. you might have a valid point.

Edited October 17, 2019 by Padders
Added

[Halibut 12]

1 minute ago, Padders said:

But Hal,

The world war bomber crews were defending our country, and NOT committing atrocious acts on strangers, many many bomber crews sacrificed their lives in the cause of freedom.

Personally I can't thank them enough.

An act is either atrocious or it isn't in my view - blowing an innocent  person up, so their body is torn limb from limb, or dropping firebombs so they're roasted alive or asphyxiated - these are terrible things are they not? The motive is neither here nor there.

 

To give another example - suppose, just because I felt like it, I were to mutilate a person by cutting off their hands and feet and then slowly torture them to death with a blowtorch. I'm sure you'd agree those were appalling and inhumane things to do, yes? 

 

Ok, now I'm going to do it again, for a very good reason - such as saving the free world from tyranny, or saving the lives of an entire orphanage full of children.  Is the act - the torture, the dismemberment, the agony suffered by the victim, any the less awful?

 

I don't think so.

 

[Ontarian1981 10]

1 hour ago, Halibut said:

An act is either atrocious or it isn't in my view - blowing an innocent  person up, so their body is torn limb from limb, or dropping firebombs so they're roasted alive or asphyxiated - these are terrible things are they not? The motive is neither here nor there.

 

To give another example - suppose, just because I felt like it, I were to mutilate a person by cutting off their hands and feet and then slowly torture them to death with a blowtorch. I'm sure you'd agree those were appalling and inhumane things to do, yes? 

 

Ok, now I'm going to do it again, for a very good reason - such as saving the free world from tyranny, or saving the lives of an entire orphanage full of children.  Is the act - the torture, the dismemberment, the agony suffered by the victim, any the less awful?

 

I don't think so.

 

Ever heard of the Blitz? What allied bombers did to German cities came long after what the Nazis did to British cities.

In both cases ,the bombings were to wear down the resistance of the enemy population. Also, the countries involved were at WAR.

Acts of warlike behaviour in peacetime are terrorism and there is a massive difference.

Even that book of fairy tales called the Bible,which millions follow says that the only time it is alright to kill is in a "just" war. Britain's decision to declare war on Germany was most definitely "just".

[Halibut 12]

3 hours ago, Ontarian1981 said:

Ever heard of the Blitz? What allied bombers did to German cities came long after what the Nazis did to British cities.

In both cases ,the bombings were to wear down the resistance of the enemy population. Also, the countries involved were at WAR.

Acts of warlike behaviour in peacetime are terrorism and there is a massive difference.

Even that book of fairy tales called the Bible,which millions follow says that the only time it is alright to kill is in a "just" war. Britain's decision to declare war on Germany was most definitely "just".

Lame apology for atrocities there, well done. I note that you're employing the utterly facile playground argument of 'they started it'.

In the context of the WW2, however, I think you kind of have a point - I think this country did the right thing in fighting against the monstrous tyranny and aggression of Hitler. That being said, I disagree with your differentiation between atrocious acts committed in wartime and peacetime. Firstly, an atrocity is an atrocity regardless of time, place or motivation in my view and secondly, the line between peace and war is blurry and really very thin indeed - look at the 'troubles' in Northern Ireland. Was that a war or merely an outbreak of terrorism?

[Ontarian1981 10]

20 minutes ago, Halibut said:

Lame apology for atrocities there, well done. I note that you're employing the utterly facile playground argument of 'they started it'.

In the context of the WW2, however, I think you kind of have a point - I think this country did the right thing in fighting against the monstrous tyranny and aggression of Hitler. That being said, I disagree with your differentiation between atrocious acts committed in wartime and peacetime. Firstly, an atrocity is an atrocity regardless of time, place or motivation in my view and secondly, the line between peace and war is blurry and really very thin indeed - look at the 'troubles' in Northern Ireland. Was that a war or merely an outbreak of terrorism?

You seriously need to check the definition of "atrocity". I never heard of any war crimes tribunals charging the allies or their servicemen with criminal acts of war after either World War1 or World War 2.

[Longcol 592]

5 minutes ago, Ontarian1981 said:

You seriously need to check the definition of "atrocity". I never heard of any war crimes tribunals charging the allies or their servicemen with criminal acts of war after either World War1 or World War 2.

Maybe because we didn't finish runners up?

[Halibut 12]

2 minutes ago, Ontarian1981 said:

You seriously need to check the definition of "atrocity". I never heard of any war crimes tribunals charging the allies or their servicemen with criminal acts of war after either World War1 or World War 2.

I'm using it in the sense of meaning the act of deliberately killing people by dismemberment, massive trauma, explosion, gunshot wounds, drowning, burns and so on. If you don't consider such acts atrocious, then you're either amoral or just pointlessly playing with semantics.

[Guest makapaka]

49 minutes ago, Halibut said:

Lame apology for atrocities there, well done. I note that you're employing the utterly facile playground argument of 'they started it'.

In the context of the WW2, however, I think you kind of have a point - I think this country did the right thing in fighting against the monstrous tyranny and aggression of Hitler. That being said, I disagree with your differentiation between atrocious acts committed in wartime and peacetime. Firstly, an atrocity is an atrocity regardless of time, place or motivation in my view and secondly, the line between peace and war is blurry and really very thin indeed - look at the 'troubles' in Northern Ireland. Was that a war or merely an outbreak of terrorism?

Your post is completely out of context.

 

the definition of an atrocity is a wicked / cruel act. applying context is important.

 

If you have a fascist regime on a killing spree gassing Jews and raping and pillaging - who are dropping bombs and killing people and therefore committing atrocities on a massive scale - then a response to that action is required.

 

therefore a retaliation occurred - which also ended in people being killed - but also prevented what would have been a far greater level of atrocity had it not been undertaken and at great cost to people who would never have undertaken an act should it have not been necessary for the greater good. Do you think the majority of people fighting nazi Germany were purposefully  undertaking a wicked and cruel act? 
 

 placing those actions on the same level is completely wrong - wilful atrocity opposed by defence causing unavoidable fatalities is not comparable.

 

The whole thing was a tragedy - but stating the opposition to the nazis was an atrocity is ridiculous.

 

you should have a think sometimes.

[mancmart 10]

Dropping bombs on populations is atrocious; end of.