Incident At Arndale Shopping Centre Manchester

[Halibut]

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?

[Ontarian1981]

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.

[Longcol]

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?

[Halibut]

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.

[Guest makapaka]

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.

[mancmart]

Dropping bombs on populations is atrocious; end of.

[Ontarian1981]

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]

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]

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.