News Paris Attack

[Gwadien]

Incorrect.

The Germans were bombing strategically. Then one night they fucked up and hit a city center, i think it was Coventry?
MoD took it as a change in German policy and thus changed the Brit bombing methodology as a result, Germans, not knowing about the mistake, took it as a change in the Brit policy and changed also.

After the war it was discovered this was an accidental bombing in the first place. I would find some sources but cba atm.

Yes, they fucked up and hit a town centre which was full of factories, as we would call it - acceptable because its collateral.

We bombed Germany, we targeted civilians areas to cause terror.

@throdgrain you even said it yourself, when the shoe was on the other foot, we decided to go overboard, then why can't you apply this logic to IS?

Apart from its a different kettle of fish, but you still don't make friends from bombing people.

 

[Ormorof]

Actually I don't even know how you dare say that. I'm going to stop posting now before you get the slagging off you fucking deserve for that.

How dare anyone discuss things on a discussion forum

 

[Gumbo]

They (IS) will have to be fought and killed eventually. Otherwise they will just spread. They won't stop at any particular border, they'll just keep going. It's going to occupy us for the next 10 years, but the coalition this time will be broader with greater involvement than just us, the US, and token appearances from other NATO members.

You're an idiot if you think we'll bomb anything like what happened in WW2, but of course there will be collateral damage, and of course we'd rather that happened in Syria, than in Naples, or Vienna, or Budapest, or Athens.... It's just the way that the world turns. And we don't deliberately target civilians, we just don't.

I'll get accused of being ageist or some bollocks now, but when you've left Uni and been in the real world for a while, the rose tinted specs will fall off, you'll get a broader view, and you'll realise that your bleeding heart won't change the actions of evil men.

 

[Poag]

Yes, they fucked up and hit a town centre which was full of factories, as we would call it - acceptable because its collateral.

We bombed Germany, we targeted civilians areas to cause terror.

Either you dont understand or decided not to.

It was taken as the MoD as a change in German policy to cause terror by hitting the city center. The accidental bombing was far from train yards or factories and that was why they took it as a change in policy.
Then Bomber command bombed German cities as a response to the accidental bombing of a Brit city, then the Germans responded to that.

Neither side wanted to bomb cities for terror, but responded to the other side doing such, either perceived or actually.

I seem to recall part of a book about Harris where he regarded it as a monumental failure to write off the one bombing of a city as a mistake and instead to respond in kind, after the truth came out after the war.

 

[Ormorof]

But bombing innocents and destroying essential infrastructure will totally stop evil men

It will also stop more young bleeding heart innocents from becoming evil men

 

[Talivar]

Killing ISIS is needed, no one disagrees with that, but the point is if we end up killing innocents as we try to kill ISIS then we just end up bolstering their ranks. This is NOT a war of numbers like WW2 where once you have taken the leaders and army you win, this is a war of Ideology and you will never defeat it if you start killing innocents.

 

[Talivar]

Too many atm seem to be thinking with their emotions and not their heads, this is exactly what ISIS want

 

[Poag]

Not everyone follows that form of logical thought process to make their decisions. That situation you describe for me would not go that way as i dont count Beirut or Paris or Athens or New York as having any more of a emotional link to me than any of the others, or any place besides where i actually live. They are all strangers to me and unless they directly do something to impact my life then they are all equally as valued. If i was forced to choose between the two with no possible way out i would make my pick randomly. If there was a way out though i would choose it and that's what these conversations are highlighting. I am trying to offer viewpoints that say why do any innocents have to die as opposed to others stating its fine if some die (Acceptable Losses?)
It is very rare where we are TRULY in a situation where there is only 1 option of what to do, the reality is there are always options , it is just soem need more work than others and some involve varying degrees of sacrifice to achieve.

You miss understand, its not about thought...its about impulse. If your impulse or first sub conscious decision is taken. You will always pick a person who looks like you. So if you are white, white, if you have brown hair, brown hair. People who faces are similar to your own. Regardless of where they come from or what they've done.
Its something to do with looking after your children, where you'll do more automatically to save something that looks like you than something that doesn't.

As soon as you allow more time for the decision however then it goes truly mental as people make rational decisions (in there own rationalizations) to weigh up the pros and cons of both lives they are offered. Some people get stuck in a loop and choose neither before the timer expires, others stick with gut or impulse feeling.

 

[Talivar]

Well i will concede that my decision making has often been described to as not the norm as i often lack that initial impulse and seem to have a never ending over thinking decision making process.

 

[DaGaffer]

Either you dont understand or decided not to.

It was taken as the MoD as a change in German policy to cause terror by hitting the city center. The accidental bombing was far from train yards or factories and that was why they took it as a change in policy.
Then Bomber command bombed German cities as a response to the accidental bombing of a Brit city, then the Germans responded to that.

Neither side wanted to bomb cities for terror, but responded to the other side doing such, either perceived or actually.

I seem to recall part of a book about Harris where he regarded it as a monumental failure to write off the one bombing of a city as a mistake and instead to respond in kind, after the truth came out after the war.

Sorry but that's nonsense. Area bombing by the British was an official policy. After late 1940 there was almost no pretence* about precision bombing by Bomber Command, because they knew that they couldn't hit a cow's arse with a banjo, especially at night, so they didn't even pretend it was possible, and Arthur Harris advocated such tactics even before the war. It was a major contention point with the Americans, who insisted precision bombing was possible, and lost vast numbers of men attempting to prove it, only to quietly follow the British example when they started bombing Japan. British bombing in WWII was 99% "terror" bombing directed at population centres, because that was the best they could do with the tools available, and there's no point pretending otherwise

(*a few specialist operations aside, like the dambuster raids etc.)

 

[Poag]

Sorry but that's nonsense.

Thats contrary to stuff i've read, where both sides tried to bomb not for terror but for military values (but i concede it being a fairly scatter-gun affair with regards to precision), and then after the accidental raid switched to pure terror. But I am unable to provide any sources atm to backup my memory, so i'll leave it there.

 

[Gwadien]

I have @DaGaffer for this one, I win.

@Poag - Propaganda.

It's like saying during the Blitz London was all happy and united, not the truth, at all.

Robberies, Rape, Muggings all went through the roof.

 

[Poag]

Meh. I'd rather be wrong than a @Gwadien
:-P

 

[Gwadien]

Meh. I'd rather be wrong than a @Gwadien
:-P

I thought we bonded after running around Chernarus

 

[Raven]

Biggest misconception ever.

Germany strategically bombed us, they hit factories and such, sure some bombs missed.

When we bombed them we targeted entire cities, in fact, we killed more people in a single bombing run than the Germans did over the entire course of the Blitz.

Because we targeted civilians intentionally in order to strike fear and get them to give up quicker.

So if anything, we're ISIS in your analogy.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II
25 Thousand - 2 days.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blitz
40 Thousand - 8 months.

Let's learn from history eh? Rather than trying to re write it to suit out own skewered agenda.

Applying street fighting logic to this situation is retarded as fuck.

What the hell are you talking about? The Germans bombed far more than just industrial sites. East end of London being one target

 

[Gwadien]

 

[Poag]

 

[Talivar]

She is not alone! , although these probably have a better chance!
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/201...n-isis-following-paris-attacks_n_8573418.html

 

[Gwadien]

She is not alone! , although these probably have a better chance!
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/201...n-isis-following-paris-attacks_n_8573418.html

Take down their twitter accounts.

WE WIN!

 

[Gray]

https://www.facebook.com/craigs.email/videos/1085731944773121/

The terrorist caught on Sky News camera at the end....

 

[DaGaffer]

Thats contrary to stuff i've read, where both sides tried to bomb not for terror but for military values (but i concede it being a fairly scatter-gun affair with regards to precision), and then after the accidental raid switched to pure terror. But I am unable to provide any sources atm to backup my memory, so i'll leave it there.

Oh the RAF tried, in 1939-1940 they had a go at daylight raids against Germany and they immediately worked out they'd have no Bomber Command left within six months if they carried on with the practice. No politician would have sanctioned area bombing from the get go, but the actual people who knew what they were talking about, e.g. Sir Hugh Trenchard, knew that precision bombing was a fantasy even before they tried it (typically the average "precision" bombing raid at night landed five miles from its target), and they knew the end game was area bombing. They'd been advocating this since the twenties. Churchill and others still pretended the RAF was engaged in precision bombing until well after the war.

 

[DaGaffer]

What the hell are you talking about? The Germans bombed far more than just industrial sites. East end of London being one target

Technically, they didn't start bombing population centres until after the RAF did. Not in the UK anyway, they'd done it in Rotterdam.

 

[throdgrain]

Yes, they fucked up and hit a town centre which was full of factories, as we would call it - acceptable because its collateral.

We bombed Germany, we targeted civilians areas to cause terror.

@throdgrain you even said it yourself, when the shoe was on the other foot, we decided to go overboard, then why can't you apply this logic to IS?

Apart from its a different kettle of fish, but you still don't make friends from bombing people.

I can apply this logic to IS! That's the point, and why we should destroy them, utterly.

 

[Talivar]

Ok iand how would we do that? How would you propose we destroy them utterly

 

[Ormorof]

After we have bombed them and they have bombed us we could get them to sign a surrender treaty in a train near versaille

Thats never ended badly

 

[Gwadien]

I can apply this logic to IS! That's the point, and why we should destroy them, utterly.

But we've established that a full scale assault on them would just make the problem worse.

I posed the question to @Big G and he said he can't answer it, so how would you?

 

[throdgrain]

It's kind of how it works. They hurt us , because they want to. We have to hurt them, as badly as possible. It's not quite the knee-jerk reactionary stuff I know you expect, it's just how stuff is. If you think you can reason with them, you are wrong. They don't give a toss what we think. In Afghanistan among other places we have tried to implement our way of thinking and living upon them, they don't want it, they just want to do thier own stuff. That part of the world needs a lot more Saddams, unfortunately! Notice how Egypt have got away with a lot of this Muslim Brotherhood stuff? By imprisoning them all and just generally being right cunts to them.

 

[Raven]

Like I said before, you cannot reason with the insane.

Just blow them all up, we will be stuck with this mess for decades if we carry on pussy footing around. See a training camp? Drop the biggest non nuclear weapons we have on it, just leave a big smoking hole in the ground.

That being said, we absolutely have to stop killing civilians, we have to maintain (or go back to!) the moral high ground.

 

[Talivar]

How are you going to hurt them as badly as possible, what methods?

 

[Talivar]

And remember no1 is saying sit down and talk to them, we just saying we need to be smart with out we deal with removing them