Incident At Arndale Shopping Centre Manchester

[Halibut]

1 hour ago, makapaka said:

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.

 

I'm not confused at all thanks. My view is clear and consistent.

 

In my view all military conflict is atrocious and appalling.  It's very rarely justifiable, but when it is - and WW2 is an example - then we're compelled, like bomber crews ,as it were, to do monstrous and atrocious things to other human beings.

 

What I don't like - and which you quote me about above - is the hypocrisy of people who get all riled up (see post no. 25) when words like atrocious are used about armed forces. It's ridiculous - you're equally dismembered in an explosion whether it's a Nazi bomb or one of ours.

[melthebell]

9 minutes ago, Halibut said:

I'm not confused at all thanks. My view is clear and consistent.

 

In my view all military conflict is atrocious and appalling.  It's very rarely justifiable, but when it is - and WW2 is an example - then we're compelled, like bomber crews ,as it were, to do monstrous and atrocious things to other human beings.

 

What I don't like - and which you quote me about above - is the hypocrisy of people who get all riled up (see post no. 25) when words like atrocious are used about armed forces. It's ridiculous - you're equally dismembered in an explosion whether it's a Nazi bomb or one of ours.

Yeah but in our case it would be a 'good' dismembering

[Halibut]

2 minutes ago, melthebell said:

Yeah but in our case it would be a 'good' dismembering

[lil-minx92]

On 17/10/2019 at 02:19, 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.)

I rarely agree with the big fish Halibut, but I have to on this point- Its perfectly possible.

 

I read a book by an (ex) ISIS terrorist. He was perfectly sane but just had different beliefs/ideologies to 'our western' ones.  Many of the 'successful' terrorists (eg those involved in 911) are/were very sane &  intelligent people..winners if you like. They are chosen for their tasks for this very reason. If they had taken a different path in life they would probably have been captains of industry / political leaders etc.

Edited October 18, 2019 by lil-minx92

[Lex Luthor]

7 hours ago, lil-minx92 said:

I rarely agree with the big fish Halibut, but I have to on this point- Its perfectly possible.

 

I read a book by an (ex) ISIS terrorist. He was perfectly sane but just had different beliefs/ideologies to 'our western' ones.  Many of the 'successful' terrorists (eg those involved in 911) are/were very sane &  intelligent people..winners if you like. They are chosen for their tasks for this very reason. If they had taken a different path in life they would probably have been captains of industry / political leaders etc.

It's impossible for me to reconcile that anyone mentally sound could commit acts of atrocities on another human.  

 

I mean, take Shipman, for example, I know he was seen as respectable and held a respectable job, and money was supposed to be his motivation but to murder that often, he must have enjoyed the act, and, that, to me, must mean he had serious mental health issues.

 

I thought terrorists were usually people with mental health issues, often worsened by a feeling of isolation.

[Guest makapaka]

13 hours ago, melthebell said:

Yeah but in our case it would be a 'good' dismembering

No -  not a good dismembering obviously.

 

but an atrocity is an action that is purposefully wicked or cruel.

 

put that description into context - a war that was 80 years ago with none of the weaponry sophistication that exists now.

 

They had to win a war for the greater good - were people being purposefully wicked or cruel - I don’t think so.

 

if you take the logic and description to the extreme - those British soldiers were also murderers who killed people - but we don’t use that term - because it’s out of context - because it was a war.

 

come on.

 

13 hours ago, Halibut said:

Bizarre.

[melthebell]

10 hours ago, makapaka said:

No -  not a good dismembering obviously.

 

but an atrocity is an action that is purposefully wicked or cruel.

 

put that description into context - a war that was 80 years ago with none of the weaponry sophistication that exists now.

 

They had to win a war for the greater good - were people being purposefully wicked or cruel - I don’t think so.

 

if you take the logic and description to the extreme - those British soldiers were also murderers who killed people - but we don’t use that term - because it’s out of context - because it was a war.

 

come on.

 

Bizarre.

I was taking the ****, halibut got it