Thread: The Chick who blew up Moscow

Originally Posted by Xavsnipe

doesn't change the fact that it was dropped on civilians.

and how would you know for a fact it saved more lives than it destroyed?

maybe a terrorist bomb blows up a bulldozer that would've otherwise leveled a whole neighborhood...I think that's saving lives, right?

It all depends how you want to spin that story, man...but stop kidding yourself and wake up.

How about because the empire of japan said they would fight until the last man was dead.

Originally Posted by TheTip

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Originally Posted by drfroob

Originally Posted by Saltspring

Terrorism is unfortunately what happens when it is impossible to fight fairly. As technology and military budgets increase it is the only option to challenge a superior force, the only way to win is to make things so bloody in your enemies home they are no longer willing to fight. The more clearly militarily superior any nation is the more likely it will face terrorist activities in any conflict. Terrorism is simply another tool exactly the same as the whole sale bombing of cities in world war II committed by many nations, oddly when you compare the two actions they are exactly the same intent.

War unfortunately is war and civilians die exactly the same from an off target bomb dropped from a jet as they do from a suicide bomber. In war you attack the targets you can cause the most damage hitting and it is very hard attack military personnel in a foreign country so sadly that leaves civilian targets. A suicide bomber is no less cowardly or heroic than any of the pilots dropping incendiary bombs on cities during world war II. Both are willing to die for their cause, both believe in the people who sent them there. Heroism is only the perception of who is looking at the action, too the people in the cities being bombed in WWII the pilots dropping those bombs were most definitely not heroes more like monsters. Oddly to the people sending who sent them those pilots were heroes winning the war.

So tell me who is right and wrong, and if you actually try and tell me I will call you an idiot. The same way I will call you and idiot for saying terrorism is any more evil than most other methods of war, yes terrorism is a military tactic that has been used in war for thousands of years. It will not stop today or tomorrow or ever as long as it still works, just like every other tactic of war. Any war kills civilians as targets or collateral damage, the collateral effects of starvation and disease caused by war have killed more people in history than all the weapons man has every created with his own hands.

And if you want to call me a peace monger well then I will laugh at your face, only an idiot thinks there is no need for armies. There is always someone willing to take what someone else has and if you don't have an army or friend with an army you wont have anything for long. My problem is that everyone seeks the middle ground between, compassion and mercilessness. There is no middle ground, you either kill with utter brutality until the people of your enemy yields, or you do everything in your power to prove to the enemy populace you will do them no harm, even if that means holding back equipment and numbers to allow the enemy fight a conventional war on their terms rather than hide among the populace and strike any where they can, but this you pay for with the blood of your soldiers. War is not a kind and gently thing and you will only get peace either by paying the price of blood with that of your soldiers or with that of the enemy population.

The difference is the pilots in WW2 were fighting for their lives; they and their countries would have been obliterated were it not for their fighting. The suicide bombers are obliterating themselves to make a point, they aren't fighting for their own good.

And it is extremely foolish to ask a question and berate those who attempt to answer.

Not to mention that an off target bomb drop is no where near the same as making civilians your target.


Then theres the whole declared war between nations deal being different to those that choose to kill civilians in an unlawfull war. But im probable just being picky about the details.

How do you have unlawful war? War is about conquering and killing, is there a lawful way to do that? Can i somehow blow someones house up withing the boundaries of the law? Now granted, there is a sort of "gentlemanly rule" about war witch most civilized countries follow, but thats different. Now im not defending the terrorists, what they are doing is wrong, and they should all be lined up against the wall and shot. But having war overall is wrong. Generals who lead in war and terrorists are almost the same once you get rid of the connotation between them. Their motives are different but their goal is the same.

A lawfull war is 2 or more nations that have entered into a state of war. An unlawfull war is a war were people are not fighting under a flag. Which would mean their resident country is not at war. Geneva Convention it's a good read once in a while it breaks down everything for you.

Terrorists are definition unlawfull combatants. Of which the people of this country don't seem to understand what that means in regards to rules anymore. Take Gito for instance. Everyone is up in arms because we have people inprisoned there for years. What they fail to understand is a lawfull combatant had rights an unlawfull does not have. The one that is overlooked the most is unlawfull combatants can be held indefinitly until the conflict has ended with out giving them a trial. Even if they recieve a trial they can be held until the conflict is over.

Originally Posted by Xavsnipe

haha yea, let's agree to disagree...

and the wake up comment was not intended to flame or insult...I really think we've all been taken for a ride by the media for years and years and it's not a good thing to just take every headline at face value...there's always something else behind the story...and there will always be a bias with those reporting it..and the sources where the news is coming from.

absolutely

Originally Posted by hawgballs

Originally Posted by drfroob

Originally Posted by THATriggerHappy

do i even need to say the civilian targeted Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings?

Those bombs saved more lives than they ended by a long shot. The Japanese were fighting to the last man; they needed to be brought to their knees and fast, before more men could be lost on island landing after island landing. Look at Iwo Jima, and how many we spent taking it, and now imagine how much more emphatically they would have defended their homeland. Dropping those bombs may have cost 240,000 people, but an invasion of Japan would have cost many more.

A terrorist bomb saves no lives, it only ends them.

Bullshit. Bombs do not "save lives" no matter which way you try to spin it, they take lives.

But then again, maybe one day a Chechen will take your line of thinking, and use a very very very powerful bomb and detonate it in Russia. Possibly causing so much damage that they choose to pullout of Chechnya...... So maybe this bomb too will be "saving lives".....

LOL the expert speakith. Yes you can use bombs in an attempt to save lifes. You have a doubt obviously so i will provide a few examples. We bomb strategic targets for what purpose? To elliminate the war machine of our opponent. Of which does what? Brings conflict to an end sooner of which saves lives on both sides of the field. Another is we use bombs to blow other bombs up. Once again because we can control the situation and keep casualties down as much as possible. But im sure you thought of that part.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Originally Posted by hawgballs

Originally Posted by drfroob

Originally Posted by THATriggerHappy

do i even need to say the civilian targeted Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings?

Those bombs saved more lives than they ended by a long shot. The Japanese were fighting to the last man; they needed to be brought to their knees and fast, before more men could be lost on island landing after island landing. Look at Iwo Jima, and how many we spent taking it, and now imagine how much more emphatically they would have defended their homeland. Dropping those bombs may have cost 240,000 people, but an invasion of Japan would have cost many more.

A terrorist bomb saves no lives, it only ends them.

Bullshit. Bombs do not "save lives" no matter which way you try to spin it, they take lives.

But then again, maybe one day a Chechen will take your line of thinking, and use a very very very powerful bomb and detonate it in Russia. Possibly causing so much damage that they choose to pullout of Chechnya...... So maybe this bomb too will be "saving lives".....

LOL the expert speakith. Yes you can use bombs in an attempt to save lifes. You have a doubt obviously so i will provide a few examples. We bomb strategic targets for what purpose? To elliminate the war machine of our opponent. Of which does what? Brings conflict to an end sooner of which saves lives on both sides of the field. Another is we use bombs to blow other bombs up. Once again because we can control the situation and keep casualties down as much as possible. But im sure you thought of that part.

Exactly my point! :9

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

LOL the expert speakith.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Originally Posted by hawgballs

Originally Posted by drfroob

Originally Posted by THATriggerHappy

do i even need to say the civilian targeted Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings?

Those bombs saved more lives than they ended by a long shot. The Japanese were fighting to the last man; they needed to be brought to their knees and fast, before more men could be lost on island landing after island landing. Look at Iwo Jima, and how many we spent taking it, and now imagine how much more emphatically they would have defended their homeland. Dropping those bombs may have cost 240,000 people, but an invasion of Japan would have cost many more.

A terrorist bomb saves no lives, it only ends them.

Bullshit. Bombs do not "save lives" no matter which way you try to spin it, they take lives.

But then again, maybe one day a Chechen will take your line of thinking, and use a very very very powerful bomb and detonate it in Russia. Possibly causing so much damage that they choose to pullout of Chechnya...... So maybe this bomb too will be "saving lives".....

LOL the expert speakith. Yes you can use bombs in an attempt to save lifes. You have a doubt obviously so i will provide a few examples. We bomb strategic targets for what purpose? To elliminate the war machine of our opponent. Of which does what? Brings conflict to an end sooner of which saves lives on both sides of the field. Another is we use bombs to blow other bombs up. Once again because we can control the situation and keep casualties down as much as possible. But im sure you thought of that part.

Fair enough.... Then by your thought process, this girl blew herself up to possibly save more Chechen lives......

Originally Posted by hawgballs

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

LOL the expert speakith.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Originally Posted by hawgballs

Originally Posted by drfroob

Originally Posted by THATriggerHappy

do i even need to say the civilian targeted Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings?

Those bombs saved more lives than they ended by a long shot. The Japanese were fighting to the last man; they needed to be brought to their knees and fast, before more men could be lost on island landing after island landing. Look at Iwo Jima, and how many we spent taking it, and now imagine how much more emphatically they would have defended their homeland. Dropping those bombs may have cost 240,000 people, but an invasion of Japan would have cost many more.

A terrorist bomb saves no lives, it only ends them.

Bullshit. Bombs do not "save lives" no matter which way you try to spin it, they take lives.

But then again, maybe one day a Chechen will take your line of thinking, and use a very very very powerful bomb and detonate it in Russia. Possibly causing so much damage that they choose to pullout of Chechnya...... So maybe this bomb too will be "saving lives".....

LOL the expert speakith. Yes you can use bombs in an attempt to save lifes. You have a doubt obviously so i will provide a few examples. We bomb strategic targets for what purpose? To elliminate the war machine of our opponent. Of which does what? Brings conflict to an end sooner of which saves lives on both sides of the field. Another is we use bombs to blow other bombs up. Once again because we can control the situation and keep casualties down as much as possible. But im sure you thought of that part.

Fair enough.... Then by your thought process, this girl blew herself up to possibly save more Chechen lives......

You could definitely argue that.