Incident At Arndale Shopping Centre Manchester

[Halibut]

3 hours ago, Branyy said:

One might say that every terrorist is mentally unstable. Yep, re-label terrorism to mental health issue, problem with terrorism solved. 🙄

One might, but one would be very wrong.

[Top Cats Hat]

8 hours ago, Branyy said:

One might say that every terrorist is mentally unstable. Yep, re-label terrorism to mental health issue, problem with terrorism solved. 🙄

That would depend on what theIr aim is.

 

I have seen a couple of features on Kurdish militias who were fighting Isis in Syria and Northern Iraq including many overseas and women fighters, and I would say that they were anything but mentally unstable.

[Lex Luthor]

On 14/10/2019 at 07:50, Halibut said:

One might, but one would be very wrong.

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.)

[Halibut]

3 hours ago, 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.)

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

[Branyy]

3 hours ago, Halibut said:

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

Are you comparing WW2 soldiers to terrorists?

[Padders]

4 hours ago, Halibut said:

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

What an incredibly silly post.

[Halibut]

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]

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]

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]

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".