Jump to content

ISIS Declares Islamic State.


monty16

Recommended Posts

 

No, they drop bombs and slaughter hundreds of thousands of civilians who don't believe in the wings on the back hogwash. And they likely don't believe in dinosaurs walking the earth alongside man or a big boat that fit two animals of every kind.

What kind of lowbrow Neanderthal even contemplates such garbage? What kind of demons would indoctrinate their children into believing in it before they are old enough to decide for themselves? Child abusers? Or priests? Oh wait, they're the same people!

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 670
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

On Guard, I don't believe in the virgin thing anymore than I believe in the wings on the back thing. Religious beliefs of any sort can be equated to low brow Neanderthal menatalicall I'm sure you would agree.

Or, if not then no offence. I understand some people still believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huge US bombs on civilian populations come to mind. And of course, Canadian warplanes carrying and dropping that sort of weapons is my chief concern.

I think that's the thing - bombing civilians directly wasn't consider a war crime during WW2 but is now. I think it's advance for peace for the world to reject the targeting of civilians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that's the thing - bombing civilians directly wasn't consider a war crime during WW2 but is now. I think it's advance for peace for the world to reject the targeting of civilians.

Depends on the circumstances....proximity of valid military targets.....protection of military invasion forces....nuclear weapons threats/use....etc. Civilians can be legally targeted in such circumstance and lawyers will consider such missions on a case-by-case basis.

Economics trumps Virtue. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's fine Michael, we can try to split hairs but the message gets across. I think it's probably well enough hidden that it will escape any notice from the moderators. IN fact Michael, it appears that it could even be finding encouragement!

In any case, nobody is coming to his rescue and helping him out with an explanation of why it's 'messed up' to think that suicide bombing is worse than any other method of killing people.

In fact Michael, I would bet that I could find an example of a soldier fighting for the 'allied' cause during WW2 being awarded the Victoria Cross for bravery that would be stated as sure suicidal.

Explain to me where you see the difference Michael.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends on the circumstances....proximity of valid military targets.....protection of military invasion forces....nuclear weapons threats/use....etc. Civilians can be legally targeted in such circumstance and lawyers will consider such missions on a case-by-case basis.

Right, there's mitigating language there but I think we can agree that bombing civilians directly is not as cheerfully received by "the" public as it was in WW2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In any case, nobody is coming to his rescue and helping him out with an explanation of why it's 'messed up' to think that suicide bombing is worse than any other method of killing people.

He commented on your argument, not on you.

In fact Michael, I would bet that I could find an example of a soldier fighting for the 'allied' cause during WW2 being awarded the Victoria Cross for bravery that would be stated as sure suicidal.

Explain to me where you see the difference Michael.

I don't see why I have to explain the difference, as I didn't make any statements with regards to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends on the circumstances....proximity of valid military targets.....protection of military invasion forces....nuclear weapons threats/use....etc. Civilians can be legally targeted in such circumstance and lawyers will consider such missions on a case-by-case basis.

That had sometimes been referred to as "collateral damage" except that term denotes that the damage is unintentional or accidental. Civilian casualties are now "expected" in these military expeditions and deemed "acceptable" by the perpetrators and "murders" by the recipients.

Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, there's mitigating language there but I think we can agree that bombing civilians directly is not as cheerfully received by "the" public as it was in WW2.

Only because of the technological advancements that makes bombing valid targets more precise. In some conflicts, civilians are purposely targeted without any fear of The Hague holding war crimes trials. It's an artificial protocol that collapses as effective governance disappears.

Economics trumps Virtue. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No answer? What is this stigma you and so many others place on suicide bombers? Is it a legitimate form of warfare against the enemy if the enemy is the 'right' enemy?

No, I don't have an answer. I didn't put any stigma on suicide bombers, you're confusing me with another poster as I said nothing like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only because of the technological advancements that makes bombing valid targets more precise.

Maybe - but there was a changed definition of War Crimes, I think, that changed things.

Also 'the big one'.

In some conflicts, civilians are purposely targeted without any fear of The Hague holding war crimes trials. It's an artificial protocol that collapses as effective governance disappears.

Those are people who can't afford accurate bombers. They can't kill wholesale like we can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OH, and -1=e, if you're going to resort to the personal attacks by telling me I'm messed up, how about explaining yourself and I'll just not bother paying any attention to the attack?

If you really truely support suicide bombers, then you are messed up. I understand why they do it, but I do not support it.

Google : Webster Griffin Tarpley, Gerald Celente, Max Keiser

ohm on soundcloud.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe - but there was a changed definition of War Crimes, I think, that changed things.

Also 'the big one'.

If you mean the "upgrades" in 1949, it did not have very practical impact(s) on subsequent conflicts...civilians were still targeted by the limits of military technology, intelligence gathering, independent non-state actors, etc.

It's like this...the very idea of prosecuting Palestinians for their war crimes is laughable.

Economics trumps Virtue. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In defence of those bombings of civilians during WW2, if in fact anything about it can be defended? Today's bombing of civilians by the US/Nato is even more deliberate, if not of the same scale as was Dresden or London.

But that's not the issue. The issue is that it's just a diversion from having to face the fact that suicide bombing is as legitimate as any other kind of bombing that kills people. Moreso because it results in fewer deaths.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In defence of those bombings of civilians during WW2, if in fact anything about it can be defended? Today's bombing of civilians by the US/Nato is even more deliberate, if not of the same scale as was Dresden or London.

But that's not the issue. The issue is that it's just a diversion from having to face the fact that suicide bombing is as legitimate as any other kind of bombing that kills people. Moreso because it results in fewer deaths.

You're being silly monty. Bombing aren't more deliberate or at the same scale. That's just crazy talk. You're better than that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shady, bombing aren't more deliberate or at the same scale? You bet that's crazy talk!

But I agree with you that I'm better than the US's stooping to bombing air raid shelters, civilians with drones, ambulances, torturing, or other atrocities they've been caught at.

IN fairness Shady, all sides do it and no side has a monopoly on it. Just don't pretend the US doesn't and then tell me I'm better and think that they don't. So why don't you start demonstrating that you're better than that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shady, bombing aren't more deliberate or at the same scale? You bet that's crazy talk!

But I agree with you that I'm better than the US's stooping to bombing air raid shelters, civilians with drones, ambulances, torturing, or other atrocities they've been caught at.

IN fairness Shady, all sides do it and no side has a monopoly on it. Just don't pretend the US doesn't and then tell me I'm better and think that they don't. So why don't you start demonstrating that you're better than that?

Your opinion isn't supported by facts and history. I think you're purposely being silly. Edited by Shady
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,794
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    slady61
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...