25 Children killed in Airstrikes

[stomination]

More fuel for the jidahist propaganda to sway the masses.

They get fuel either way.

Kill their leaders=fuel
State you dislike what they are doing=fuel
kill a civilian= fuel
Kill a "soldier"= fuel
Do nothing=fuel " they know they can stop the ones Allah is with"

So yea they don't need much to recruit the crazy ones.


Also 25 kids is a sad thing but that's a really low number.

[Begrudge]

people died yet the overall population on earth continues to grow at an unstastainable rate.

[chrykoolaid]

ahh the us killing civilians for entertainment again under the disguise of bringing "peace" ,while actively funding terror groups at the same time

[Sama-81]

We are in a vicious cycle. Until one of us stops, it will never end.

Not saying you're wrong, merely stating the fact, that ISIS is far, far worse than anything the western world can even manage. Claiming it is not so, is nonsensical bullcrap that only serves to derail constructive discussion, which isn't particularly useful. Obviously.

I guess my Lai never happened. In any event the point is that if you're feeling is that blood for blood eye for an eye is a perfect tly acceptable philosophy it will require that you perpetuate the same acts you condemn.

My Lai happened some 50 years ago, and is an absolutely ridiculous argument in regards to whether the US is as bad as ISIS. Lecturing me about what the US has done is unnecessary; personally, I see Hiroshima and Nagasaki as clear-cut war crimes, and that was what, a couple hundred thousand civilians to the hundreds in My Lai? Even so, that was another generation that, while it shouldn't be forgotten, doesn't in any way of form indicate that the US is particularly amoral in this day and age (even my country, peaceful Sweden, has done some seriously bad shit if we start to open the history books), and it still doesn't make them as bad as ISIS. Let me know when the US starts burning girls (not women) to death in cages, for refusing to serve as sex slaves, in the here and now (ie 21st century). Reading about that groups newest innovation is (or "better" yet, watch a video to ensure it isn't fake), would make any sane person understand that there clearly isn't anyone around to match them, in any sense of the word. They could make the Totenkopf-SS look like genuine humanitarians.

[lockedout]

I wouldn't call it a war, but it is a war-zone. Or combat zone if the word war leads you to believe that there is a declaration of war and not the loose definition meaning prolonged plan to remove the threat.

War has a specific definition and yes there is an actual declaration required.

[IIamaKing]

why would you post that on a game forum and its called war for a reason.

New to gen-OT?

[lockedout]

Also 25 kids is a sad thing but that's a really low number.

20 kids died in the Sandy hook shooting.

[TITAN308]

20 kids died in the Sandy hook shooting.

Like I said in a previous post, no one gives a shit unless it involves weapons inside the United States.

Then its the hip thing to have faux rage over.

[Glorious Leader]

Not saying you're wrong, merely stating the fact, that ISIS is far, far worse than anything the western world can even manage. Claiming it is not so, is nonsensical bullcrap that only serves to derail constructive discussion, which isn't particularly useful. Obviously.



My Lai happened some 50 years ago, and is an absolutely ridiculous argument in regards to whether the US is as bad as ISIS. Lecturing me about what the US has done is unnecessary; personally, I see Hiroshima and Nagasaki as clear-cut war crimes, and that was what, a couple hundred thousand civilians to the hundreds in My Lai? Even so, that was another generation that, while it shouldn't be forgotten, doesn't in any way of form indicate that the US is particularly amoral in this day and age (even my country, peaceful Sweden, has done some seriously bad shit if we start to open the history books), and it still doesn't make them as bad as ISIS. Let me know when the US starts burning girls (not women) to death in cages, for refusing to serve as sex slaves, in the here and now (ie 21st century). Reading about that groups newest innovation is (or "better" yet, watch a video to ensure it isn't fake), would make any sane person understand that there clearly isn't anyone around to match them, in any sense of the word. They could make the Totenkopf-SS look like genuine humanitarians.

Which is all we and good but still doesn't answer the charge about eye for an eye being just as barbaric as isis. It's the exact same philosophy that isis has and would require you to perform the exact same acts you condemn.

Sadly my Lai is not the worst part of the US record of imperialism. Curent examples exist as well, either by US soldiers or US backed groups who carry out attrocitites with our support. ISIS IS bad, they are a barbarous medieval society and that should be stopped. The US and the history of western imperialism is just as bloody unfortunately.

[the game]

Like I said in a previous post, no one gives a shit unless it involves weapons inside the United States.

Then its the hip thing to have faux rage over.

I disagree. They also love any excuse to blame America for the world's problems.

[Hotmail]

They get fuel either way.

Kill their leaders=fuel
State you dislike what they are doing=fuel
kill a civilian= fuel
Kill a "soldier"= fuel
Do nothing=fuel " they know they can stop the ones Allah is with"

So yea they don't need much to recruit the crazy ones.


Also 25 kids is a sad thing but that's a really low number.

That is true although children tend to be worth bonus points.

ahh the us killing civilians for entertainment again under the disguise of bringing "peace" ,while actively funding terror groups at the same time

There must always be the evil and the lesser evil. Al-Qaeda had to fall in line, that is why the twin towers may have been brought down by government jews equipped with thermite explosives.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

Not saying you're wrong, merely stating the fact, that ISIS is far, far worse than anything the western world can even manage. Claiming it is not so, is nonsensical bullcrap that only serves to derail constructive discussion, which isn't particularly useful. Obviously.

I'd never consider ISIS as good people. They are crazy, they scare me. I just don't think we're doing the world any favors either.

[stomination]

20 kids died in the Sandy hook shooting.

to be a little brutal....its not hard to kill that many kids in a school with the intent to do so. Especially when its a big surprise and no one is there to protect.

Bombing isis isn't a big surprise for anyone. The civilians know one day it will happen. Even the Iraq army knows to take back towns they will prbly end up killing civilians.

[Sama-81]

Which is all we and good but still doesn't answer the charge about eye for an eye being just as barbaric as isis. It's the exact same philosophy that isis has and would require you to perform the exact same acts you condemn.

It isn't though. ISIS are far beyond "an eye for an eye" in terms of barbarism. They commit absolutely heinous acts of violence against entirely innocent people, that lack the slightest chance or wish of inflicting any damage on anyone, while the "eye for an eye"-principle actually requires your victim to have committed an equal act himself (ie, precludes innocents from being harmed). That said, I absolutely do not defend that stance either, in any way or form. It is indeed barbaric, and I entirely agree that such a stance will cause far more misery, likely for all involved, than a more, lets say level-headed, approach. My only beef is the ridiculous notion that the US could somehow equal ISIS when it comes to brutality and callousness for death. They are utter amateurs in comparison.

[Glorious Leader]

It isn't though. ISIS are far beyond "an eye for an eye" in terms of barbarism. They commit absolutely heinous acts of violence against entirely innocent people, that lack the slightest chance or wish of inflicting any damage on anyone, while the "eye for an eye"-principle actually requires your victim to have committed an equal act himself (ie, precludes innocents from being harmed). That said, I absolutely do not defend that stance either, in any way or form. It is indeed barbaric, and I entirely agree that such a stance will cause far more misery, likely for all involved, than a more, lets say level-headed, approach. My only beef is the ridiculous notion that the US could somehow equal ISIS when it comes to brutality and callousness for death. They are utter amateurs in comparison.

Uhh yes it is as barbaric. Adherence to the eye for en eye principle would require you to commit the same acts to they do to you. They behead some western journalist. Guess what you've gotta do? They sell some westerners into slavery? Guess what eye for an eye demands you do?

[Tumble]

It'd be interesting to see how everyone reacted if America just said fuck it and pulled out of every country. Let Isis be isis, close the boarders to refugees, let everyone kill everyone. Basically treat the rest of the world like North Korea and turn a blind eye. How long would it take for the anti war people to scream up and down that the USA has to help?

[Torgent]

War has a specific definition and yes there is an actual declaration required.

I agree, but to the common person, basically any military action that is upheld for a long amount of time is war. It's incorrect, but that's one of those socially accepted inaccuracies.

[the game]

It'd be interesting to see how everyone reacted if America just said fuck it and pulled out of every country. Let Isis be isis, close the boarders to refugees, let everyone kill everyone. Basically treat the rest of the world like North Korea and turn a blind eye. How long would it take for the anti war people to scream up and down that the USA has to help?

It would still somehow be our fault. They would just say we started all the fights and then left everyone else to deal with it.

[ImpTaimer]

Nice clickbait title OP.

CNN is guardian/washingtonpost-tier cockameme.

Jihads use children as human bombs/shields. More@11

[Sama-81]

Uhh yes it is as barbaric. Adherence to the eye for en eye principle would require you to commit the same acts to they do to you. They behead some western journalist. Guess what you've gotta do? They sell some westerners into slavery? Guess what eye for an eye demands you do?

No. The "eye for an eye"-principle only applies to the individual that commits the act, in it's natural state. Ie, it doesn't mean that innocents on the other side should be sold into slavery. The principle was actually conceived to prevent blood feuds and excessive retributions, which basically means that it was enacted as a less-bloody alternative to earlier, more primitive forms of punishments - such as some of those ISIS uses. Barbaric or not (well...it obviously is), it isn't even in the same ballpark as ISIS.