Incident At Arndale Shopping Centre Manchester

[Ontarian1981 10]

1 hour ago, Longcol said:

Maybe because we didn't finish runners up?

 And a damn good job too, or we would all be leading dramatically different lives today.

[Lex Luthor 10]

21 hours ago, Halibut said:

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

I would have thought they belonged to the 'forced to' category, to be fair.

 

I have to agree that bombing civilians is an artrocity, no matter what side you're on.

 

Edited October 18, 2019 by Lex Luthor

[Halibut 12]

7 hours ago, makapaka said:

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.

That wasn't what I did though, was it?  I clearly stated -  ''I think this country did the right thing in fighting against the monstrous tyranny and aggression of Hitler. ''

         What I did suggest though, was that although in my view we were right to oppose Hitler by force, in doing so we committed atrocious deeds. Your line about 'placing those actions on the same level' doesn't stack up - you state 'wilful attrocity opposed by defence'; yet the defence involved the wilful and deliberate commission and action of atrocious behaviour on our part.

      As I've previously suggested, it's the acts of killing others, maiming others that are atrocious, not the intention behind those acts.

[Guest makapaka]

1 hour ago, Halibut said:

That wasn't what I did though, was it?  I clearly stated -  ''I think this country did the right thing in fighting against the monstrous tyranny and aggression of Hitler. ''

         What I did suggest though, was that although in my view we were right to oppose Hitler by force, in doing so we committed atrocious deeds. Your line about 'placing those actions on the same level' doesn't stack up - you state 'wilful attrocity opposed by defence'; yet the defence involved the wilful and deliberate commission and action of atrocious behaviour on our part.

      As I've previously suggested, it's the acts of killing others, maiming others that are atrocious, not the intention behind those acts.

You also said

 

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

 

so you agree that these atrocities were necessary but consider any defence of them as a lame apology?

 

Either you agree that they were necessary and are also apologising for them - or you don’t think they were necessary.

 

i think you’ve got yourself confused again to be honest.

 

[Halibut 12]

1 hour ago, makapaka said:

You also said

 

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

 

so you agree that these atrocities were necessary but consider any defence of them as a lame apology?

 

Either you agree that they were necessary and are also apologising for them - or you don’t think they were necessary.

 

i think you’ve got yourself confused again to be honest.

 

I'm not confused at all thanks. My view is clear and consistent.

 

In my view all military conflict is atrocious and appalling.  It's very rarely justifiable, but when it is - and WW2 is an example - then we're compelled, like bomber crews ,as it were, to do monstrous and atrocious things to other human beings.

 

What I don't like - and which you quote me about above - is the hypocrisy of people who get all riled up (see post no. 25) when words like atrocious are used about armed forces. It's ridiculous - you're equally dismembered in an explosion whether it's a Nazi bomb or one of ours.

[melthebell 862]

9 minutes ago, Halibut said:

I'm not confused at all thanks. My view is clear and consistent.

 

In my view all military conflict is atrocious and appalling.  It's very rarely justifiable, but when it is - and WW2 is an example - then we're compelled, like bomber crews ,as it were, to do monstrous and atrocious things to other human beings.

 

What I don't like - and which you quote me about above - is the hypocrisy of people who get all riled up (see post no. 25) when words like atrocious are used about armed forces. It's ridiculous - you're equally dismembered in an explosion whether it's a Nazi bomb or one of ours.

Yeah but in our case it would be a 'good' dismembering

[Halibut 12]

2 minutes ago, melthebell said:

Yeah but in our case it would be a 'good' dismembering

[lil-minx92 10]

On 17/10/2019 at 02:19, Lex Luthor said:

Do you think it's possible that someone with good mental health could commit atrocities on strangers?  (Providing they weren't being forced to do so.)

I rarely agree with the big fish Halibut, but I have to on this point- Its perfectly possible.

 

I read a book by an (ex) ISIS terrorist. He was perfectly sane but just had different beliefs/ideologies to 'our western' ones.  Many of the 'successful' terrorists (eg those involved in 911) are/were very sane &  intelligent people..winners if you like. They are chosen for their tasks for this very reason. If they had taken a different path in life they would probably have been captains of industry / political leaders etc.

Edited October 18, 2019 by lil-minx92

[Lex Luthor 10]

7 hours ago, lil-minx92 said:

I rarely agree with the big fish Halibut, but I have to on this point- Its perfectly possible.

 

I read a book by an (ex) ISIS terrorist. He was perfectly sane but just had different beliefs/ideologies to 'our western' ones.  Many of the 'successful' terrorists (eg those involved in 911) are/were very sane &  intelligent people..winners if you like. They are chosen for their tasks for this very reason. If they had taken a different path in life they would probably have been captains of industry / political leaders etc.

It's impossible for me to reconcile that anyone mentally sound could commit acts of atrocities on another human.  

 

I mean, take Shipman, for example, I know he was seen as respectable and held a respectable job, and money was supposed to be his motivation but to murder that often, he must have enjoyed the act, and, that, to me, must mean he had serious mental health issues.

 

I thought terrorists were usually people with mental health issues, often worsened by a feeling of isolation.

[Guest makapaka]

13 hours ago, melthebell said:

Yeah but in our case it would be a 'good' dismembering

No -  not a good dismembering obviously.

 

but an atrocity is an action that is purposefully wicked or cruel.

 

put that description into context - a war that was 80 years ago with none of the weaponry sophistication that exists now.

 

They had to win a war for the greater good - were people being purposefully wicked or cruel - I don’t think so.

 

if you take the logic and description to the extreme - those British soldiers were also murderers who killed people - but we don’t use that term - because it’s out of context - because it was a war.

 

come on.

 

13 hours ago, Halibut said:

Bizarre.

[melthebell 862]

10 hours ago, makapaka said:

No -  not a good dismembering obviously.

 

but an atrocity is an action that is purposefully wicked or cruel.

 

put that description into context - a war that was 80 years ago with none of the weaponry sophistication that exists now.

 

They had to win a war for the greater good - were people being purposefully wicked or cruel - I don’t think so.

 

if you take the logic and description to the extreme - those British soldiers were also murderers who killed people - but we don’t use that term - because it’s out of context - because it was a war.

 

come on.

 

Bizarre.

I was taking the ****, halibut got it