2 explosions in Manchester Arena - CONFIRMED Fatalities.

[Deleted]

I don't want to know how many Arab children the west has already killed in an attempt to kill some AQ/ISIS/insert new random terror organization guys.

We are just as awful pieces of crap as they are. Both utterly unable to stop the bombings and just going from one act of revenge to the another one, all while making $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ with tons of weapon and oil deals.

the west? some countries attacking them does not mean the west is attacking

[Jaylock]

The RAF is having some fun

Is that a bomb that that is written on, or is it just the engine?

[ParanoiD84]

Is that a bomb that that is written on, or is it just the engine?

laser-guided Paveway bomb if going by the articles.

[caervek]

I don't want to know how many Arab children the west has already killed in an attempt to kill some AQ/ISIS/insert new random terror organization guys.

In '03-'11 Iraq war the coalition's kill ratio was 3 civilians killed for every 1 confirmed insurgent, as they are being less precise with strikes in Syria it's highly unlikely that's improved.

[Independent voter]

In '03-'11 Iraq war the coalition's kill ratio was 3 civilians killed for every 1 confirmed insurgent, as they are being less precise with strikes in Syria it's highly unlikely that's improved.

I'll bet $50 that's from a left wing source like The Guardian.

[Zython]

Dont think the raf will stop bombing anytime soon and i dont think anyone is slaughtering more children there then isis, so people joining isis because the raf is killing some children is hypocrite's to say the least joining the group who is known to pray on children, sex slaves forcing them into suicide bombers, beheading them etc etc.

Sure it's never a good thing when they bomb children but atleast they try to avoid it.

Hey, I just had a crazy thought. Maybe bombing the shit out of people isn't helping? We've been trying this for over a decade and a half. Maybe we should try something else?

- - - Updated - - -

I'll bet $50 that's from a left wing source like The Guardian.

Ok...

Do you have evidence that it's false?

- - - Updated - - -

By the way, speaking of abject failures of policy, has anyone pointed out that the right-wing party of Britain completely failed to protect the people from this, and that maybe a left-leaning party can do a better job?

No? Ok.

[ParanoiD84]

Hey, I just had a crazy thought. Maybe bombing the shit out of people isn't helping? We've been trying this for over a decade and a half. Maybe we should try something else?

No? Ok.

Like? give me some solutions, bombing the shit out of isis is what made them so weak and stopped their advances and made them lose all the territory they had gained. Without the bombings isis would have no problem taking most of iraq. US bombings and kurdish fighters on the ground is what have worked the best.

[Spectral]

I don't want to know how many Arab children the west has already killed in an attempt to kill some AQ/ISIS/insert new random terror organization guys.

We are just as awful pieces of crap as they are. Both utterly unable to stop the bombings and just going from one act of revenge to the another one, all while making $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ with tons of weapon and oil deals.

Do you believe that the United States or United Kingdom of 2017 would kill Arab children deliberately were those that kill our children not hiding amongst them? I do not believe they would and this makes the moral distinction between the two groups completely obvious.

[Zython]

Like? give me some solutions,

Well, I personally don't have many. But that Jeremy Corbyn fellow seems to have a lot of good ideas to keep the U.K. safe. He's been right about all of this shit so far. Might be worth giving him a shot.

bombing the shit out of isis is what made them so weak and stopped their advances and made them lose all the territory they had gained.

*Looks at the dead kids*

Sure doesn't seem that way to me.

[Spectral]

*Looks at the dead kids*

Sure doesn't seem that way to me.

If you measure of a group's success is whether they have the wherewithal to kill some kids, I don't know what to tell you. It's really not that hard to kill a couple dozen kids. This is a horrifying fact about the world, but it remains so. If we react as though killing some kids is a symbol of real power, this is a very favorable outcome for ISIS.

[ParanoiD84]

Well, I personally don't have many. But that Jeremy Corbyn fellow seems to have a lot of good ideas to keep the U.K. safe. He's been right about all of this shit so far. Might be worth giving him a shot.



*Looks at the dead kids*

Sure doesn't seem that way to me.

I see, you think you can wage war without collateral damage. Atleast they try to avoid them isis does not, they butcher children and civilians all day everyday.

[Zython]

I see, you think you can wage war without collateral damage. Atleast they try to avoid them isis does not, they butcher children and civilians all day everyday.

It's possible to kill terrorists without blowing up weddings, sure.

- - - Updated - - -

If you measure of a group's success is whether they have the wherewithal to kill some kids, I don't know what to tell you. It's really not that hard to kill a couple dozen kids. This is a horrifying fact about the world, but it remains so. If we react as though killing some kids is a symbol of real power, this is a very favorable outcome for ISIS.

Well, that seems to be how people are reacting to this. So don't get angry at me, fam.

[ParanoiD84]

It's possible to kill terrorists without blowing up weddings, sure.

- - - Updated - - -



Well, that seems to be how people are reacting to this. So don't get angry at me, fam.

And you think they hit civilians with every bomb? sure sounds like it. It's not like isis always use human shields either, placing civilians in the same buildings etc but sure put all the blame on the guys doing the bombings.

Like i said they do try to avoid it no matter if you dont think so.

[Al Gorefiend]

I love all the people who don't understand that an eye for an eye only leads to everyone being blind.

A world on fire is a world not worth seeing.

Peace failed. Diplomacy failed. Negotiation failed. Drop the bombs.

[AeneasBK]

Yes, i do believe they would. The obvious distinction between the two, if you buy into official stories, is the US and UK would do these crimes on a much higher scale.

TBH Spectral can come up with a much better argument than "They started it!" I'm sure....

[Spectral]

Yes, i do believe they would. The obvious distinction between the two, if you buy into official stories, is the US and UK would do these crimes on a much higher scale.

I can't really discuss anything further with someone that believes that a policy goal of the US and UK is to kill Arab children. I think your position is obviously wrong and has no evidential support. If the goal was killing kids, both nations are capable of wholesale holocaust.

The only reason these nations kill the children of their enemies is because their enemies hide amongst their children. If you think otherwise, I think you're hopelessly propagandized to hate Western nations. Oh well.

[Independent voter]

It's not about revenge against the US, it's about furthering their religious goals. I know that's hard for non-religious people to understand.

The only part the US will play, that ISIS cares about is the US will be one of many participants in the final battle against ISIS, ISIS will win.

[Spectral]

This isn't in the Middle East, but why did we help assassinate Patrice Lumumba (Belgians pulled the trigger), replace him with a despot, and then support him in his tyranny? Did we specifically tell Mobutu to only kill adults? How about when we backed Rwanda into invading Zaire? "You know the rules, kill any innocent person you like, as long as they are not children."

I must admit that you are right about our policy. It isn't intended to target children. It is a policy of death and destruction regardless of one's age.

I'm not at all interested in defending the CIA or arguing object-level discussions about African policies, but I think it's complete moral nihilism to not distinguish between regime change and deliberately trying to cause as much death, carnage, and fear amongst civilians as possible.

I do have thoughts on the radical anti-colonial policies that turned the Congo from a semi-functional, emerging society into hell on Earth, but this isn't really the place for that discussion.

[Al Gorefiend]

Hmm... That is an interesting method. The former Criminal-in-Chief Obama dropped 26,000 bombs last year. You want us to drop more bombs until we get fed up and overthrow our leaders and expose our traitorous intelligence agencies and then try them for their heinous crimes against humanity?

I think we can do that without dropping the bombs. It will save so many more lives in the long run.

- - - Updated - - -



Indeed, one does not require the other. The Obama regime changed into the Trump regime without much death, carnage, and fear among civilians (at least American civilians). But when you supplant a democratically-elected leader with one with the intention of causing death, carnage, and fear, then unquestionably, the two are linked.

We did the same thing in Syria, but i chose not to use this as my example, because we didn't get our first choice of despot who will cause death, carnage, and fear among civilians.

Huh, I totally forgot Manchester is actually a city in the United States. You're right, ISIS was completely justified in the attack because of what Obama did.

[downnola]

I'm really trying to fight back the image of certain west-hating posters on this board/thread as paid shills in some dingy cubicle earning minimum wage for peddling nonsense. Like I've heard some far-left arguments about how NATO and the U.S cause death and destruction around world, but some of the shit in this thread even goes beyond people like Chomsky.