[Locked] mass murder of the modern time
0
Lughost
the Lugoat
why are we posting here again?
I thought we all realized a long time ago that this thread was without point by now.
I thought we all realized a long time ago that this thread was without point by now.
0
Cruz
Dope Stone Lion
Grenouille88 wrote...
I thought we all realized a long time ago that this thread was without point by now.
It has a point, OP just can't get it across properly.
0
Lughost
the Lugoat
cruz737 wrote...
Grenouille88 wrote...
I thought we all realized a long time ago that this thread was without point by now.
It has a point, OP just can't get it across properly.
Almost as bad as not having one in my opinion. Then again, nobody asked for that opinion.
0
If war can be avoide it is the best for us. BUT! in the case like in israel and palestine, it is clear that the isreali are involving civilian.
0
Qrast wrote...
If war can be avoide it is the best for us. BUT! in the case like in israel and palestine, it is clear that the isreali are involving civilian.Do you mean involving CIVILIANS?
0
a soldier must not kill any people that wasn't a combatant. Like in the event on 9/11 those tragedy are clearly targeting ordinary people/ civilians. a war against civilians do we even approve that?
0
Lughost
the Lugoat
Qrast wrote...
a soldier must not kill any people that wasn't a combatant. Like in the event on 9/11 those tragedy are clearly targeting ordinary people/ civilians. a war against civilians do we even approve that?John Lyly wrote...
"The rules of fair play do not apply in love and war. "
0
Qrast wrote...
a soldier must not kill any people that wasn't a combatant. Like in the event on 9/11 those tragedy are clearly targeting ordinary people/ civilians. a war against civilians do we even approve that?Says who? That's a choice, not a rule.
Soldiers kill civilians all the time (Bombings of Guernica, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Luftwaffe of Poland, US air raids on Japan, etc). These were all bombings against places full of CIVILIANS (and just a little piece of attacks on Civilians in WW2 alone!)
And I'm pretty sure they don't need societies approval of that kind of stuff. It's win or lose.
0
Than does it means if someone claim war they can shoot your father, your sister, your girlfriend basicly your family. well cause it's war and fair play are meant nothing at that time. Hahahaha yeah i wonder if you a soldier then you got an order to shoot civilians, kids, baby, pregnant women, old people, a child carrying barbie doll with word peace on it would you still shoot at them?
0
Qrast wrote...
Than does it means if someone claim war they can shoot your father, your sister, your girlfriend basicly your family. well cause it's war and fair play are meant nothing at that time. Hahahaha yeah i wonder if you a soldier then you got an order to shoot civilians, kids, baby, pregnant women, old people, a child carrying barbie doll with word peace on it would you still shoot at them?Yes they can, and they probably don't feel bad about it. If they're targeted as the "enemy", that's how they'll be treated.
You think they'll stop because of a word? Peace is only temporary, and only for the "winner".
0
Qrast wrote...
Peace are not for the winners only it should be belong to anyone.Just because it SHOULD belong to anyone doesn't mean it goes to anyone. That's not how real life works (unfortunately).
It's a temporary illusion until the next conflict happens.
@Aspho: Lulz, oh you.
0
Gism88 wrote...
Qrast wrote...
a soldier must not kill any people that wasn't a combatant. Like in the event on 9/11 those tragedy are clearly targeting ordinary people/ civilians. a war against civilians do we even approve that?Says who? That's a choice, not a rule.
Soldiers kill civilians all the time (Bombings of Guernica, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Luftwaffe of Poland, US air raids on Japan, etc). These were all bombings against places full of CIVILIANS (and just a little piece of attacks on Civilians in WW2 alone!)
And I'm pretty sure they don't need societies approval of that kind of stuff. It's win or lose.
I know it may sound cruel, but I actually Agree with Gism. I'm supporting Israel in this conflict. Considering that they're a nation surrounded by countries that won't even recognize them as such and pretty much want them all wiped out, I can easily understand why the IDF would retaliate with such violance. While they're not categorized as such in the Middle East, Hamas is classified as a terrorist group by USA and the European Union. These people have been launching unprovoked missile attacks and suicide bombings against Israel since the early 90's. As if to make matters worse, these sons of bitches hide their weapon caches under civilian homes and even inside mosques. They purposely operate in densely populated areas for the explicite reason that the IDF would have difficulty avoiding civilian casualties should they ever retaliate. Which is what is happening now.
