Jump to content

Incident At Arndale Shopping Centre Manchester

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Halibut said:

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

Are you comparing WW2 soldiers to terrorists?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Halibut said:

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

What an incredibly silly post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Halibut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Padders
Added

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dropping bombs on populations is atrocious; end of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.